How to use this Page

I usually stop and let it sit for awhile until I think I can handle the story and try again.

I power through.

Shoot me if I know why, though.

:-/

First I get mad at the author. Then I stop

Usually I'll finish it anyway. I don't often come across a published book that doesn't at least leave me wondering about how SOMETHING will end.

But last week I put down a book that I got about 30 pages into. I'm sure the idea was great, and apparently lots of people respected the authors as being the guru's of the genre. But in 30 pages I didn't wonder if the characters would succeed, or get hit by a bus. Then I finally gave up trying to parse the convoluted sentece structure.

I like to learn from what I read. I don't like to get a headache from it. Usually I get guilty, or eaten up about "wait, how did she resolve..." but there was really nothing TO resolve, not in 30 pages at least.

Depends on the book and why I'm reading it. If it's for a review for my blog or because a friend asked my opinion of it, I'll finish it eventually. If I'm reading it just for myself, then I'll power through a book that starts slow, but I'll put aside one that has a lot of typos or just doesn't live up to its blurb and cover art.

Word verification: gonasing

I'm like you, Nathan. I used to suffer through. But now, I invoke the words of Milan Kundera (told to me by a fellow-writer friend) ... "Life is short; reading is long."

That being said, I think about the books that I have suffered through only to be completely wowed by at the end (A.S. Byatt's POSSESSION) and wonder if there are gems I'm currently tossing aside. Oh well.

I have to admit, I power through. While there have been times when I've wanted to quit, there is always the voice in my head chastising me for entertaining thoughts of quitting something that I've started. The only book I've ever stopped in the middle of was THE HISTORIAN. No matter how much I tried to power through, I just couldn't do it. The story was too arduous to finish.

people admitting that they power through things they don't like doing are need in psychological help ....

stop before you make yourself sick

If nothing about the book grabs me at all, or I dislike the writing, I just put it down and don't bother with it again. Usually before the end of the first chapter.

If I have read a few chapters and then decide I can't bear to read anymore I might first skip to near the end - to see how it finished, without having to go through any sort of reading torture first!

I won't stop right away, but I'll definitely stop before just powering through. Maybe at the 30-70 page mark, if it's not showing signs of life or if there are plot gaps and typos everywhere, I'm just done.

If it's considered a classic, however, I might just read it through to say I've read it.

It really depends. If I borrowed it from the library I'll stop anywhere from page 50 to 100 (to give it a chance) and just let it go.

If I bought it and it's too late to return (I often buy books in bulks of like, you know...6 or something) I'll finish it (and cringe the whole time or criticize it, etc).

I sometimes stop after a few pages, and sometimes even 50 pages toward the end if I've lost interest in the characters (or if a major character dies for no particular reason except to add some drama to the story and it isn't a mystery--I hate that!)

Sometimes I'll power through a book if I have nothing else in the house to read or if it's a book everyone's talking about. I put down FREEDOM and was about to take it back to library and then powered through and was glad I did.

I do both. It really depends on whether I have something else more interesting to read at the moment. I'll rarely give up on a book entirely, though, unless I need to return it to a library.

Lol. Something about this whole poll just tickles me.

For me, a book has about 2 pages to lure me, or it's a goner.

Except classics. Classics, I'll read the whole way through even if it's torture. I want to see what the big deal is. I read Lawrence's Women in Love that way, and I hated every single second of it - that book makes no sense whatsoever. I still hate that book. Just typing its name makes me see red. But hey - I read it. Yay!

Fun poll. :)

I've only powered through on a couple of books by new writers, but by the end it didn't get better.

I don't throw books, why destroy a book that may not be to my liking? I give them away hoping they may appeal to someone else's taste. That said, I don't keep reading it.

I usually look for authors who write on their own, who don't piggyback off a successful author. I've never found one to be as good as the original. I tend to read through an author's list if I find a writing style I like.

Right now I'm reading two books that are old - a French historical - Madame Bovary, and an early Agatha story. Makes me wonder why some books stand the test of time better - maybe because the writers put more quality in their writing?

I read mostly free e-books, so "I bought it and I'm danged well gonna read it" doesn't factor in. Also, I have hundreds of free e-books waiting to be read. There's no reason for me to waste time reading stuff that's either awful or simply not to my taste.

There are two spots I'll typically bail out: about page 30, and about 1/3 through.

There are occasional exceptions. "Everyone" raved about The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, so I pushed on through. That didn't pay off.

I recently pushed through "How to Write a Sentence" because I thought there had to be a pony in all of that manure. Nope, no pony.

It's often been said that life is too short to read good books--one should only read great books. Reading books that aren't even good seems like a poor usage of one's time.

I never have as much time to read as I'd like so I just have to stick with books that I'm enjoying.

I do skim through chapters that are boring me and sometimes I skip them entirely. I do this quite a bit with Dickens, who I LOVE, but, let's face it, sometimes he was boring.

If it's really unbearable I'll cheat and read the ending. If it has any redeeming qualities at all, I'll go back and read more to figure out how they got to the conclusion.

I usually know if I'm going to like something after a page or two but I'll give it 20 pages or so before I chuck it. I used to power through but I realised I'd never have enough time to read all the books I DO enjoy in my lifetime so why waste time on ones I don't like.

As long as the book isn't really long, I keep reading unless I absolutely hate the book with a passion.

Maybe it's the obsessive writer in me, but I like to get a firm concept of why the book isn't working for me and what I would have liked to see done differently.

Also, I like to see what happens at the end for some reason, even if I'm not enjoying the book.

Maybe I should just start skipping to the last chapter like some others have mentioned ...

Even if the book is awful, I don't believe you can pass judgement until you've read through to the last page. I powered through The Shining and it was a harrowing experience. Don't read it. But if I found myself in a similar book I'll still finish it. You've gotta read a few stinkers to appreciate fine lit sometimes.

I generally weigh my expectations for the book against my experience of it. If it's a classic that everyone loves, I'm way more likely to power through. But if I'm reading a little-known story with no literary merit, I'm flinging it in the fire for sure.

I always stop after about the first three chapters if I can't bear any more but I will read the last page just to see if it's as awful as the beginning.

There have been exceptions, though. As in: I used to be a major James Patterson fan until he went off on an exclamation-point tangent. So I read a couple all the way through just to see how many !!!! there were...both times, I lost count and never read any of his books again.

Actually, the answer is "it depends." If it's something I really WANT to get through, I muscle through. Most of the time, though, I give up.

Ugh, it depends so much on context. If it's a book I have to read, for some work-related function or because somebody is expecting me to discuss it with them, then I try to power through. I'll also try to power through if it's a book I feel I should have read, usually a classic. As I get older, I find I give up on a few more books if they really irritate me, but I still finish the majority of them, gritting my teeth if I have to.

If I hate a book by page five then I would put it aside and never return. But if, say, the pacing is too slow through the middle of the back or I hate one of the characters, then I'll power through.

I've also become a "stopper." Life is too short to read something I don't enjoy. The last one I stopped was "South of Broad" by Pat Conroy. I wanted to love it, but put it down about midway through and ended up sending it back to the library, unfinished.

And I love Pat Conroy. Sigh.

i've been both. Lately i'm more likely to give up on them due to a lack of reading time. i'm not going to waste what little i have on ... um... mediocrity.

Generally, I stop. But it usually depends on a few things. The voice, the plot, or where I think the book is going. There have been instances where I'm very glad I read all the way to the end, but there was usually that little something special towards where I wanted to put it down that told me to keep reading.

Very long sentence.

Like Nathan. I once HAD to finish...for all of the aforementioned reasons and then some. Then it was, "Life's too short."
Now...I'm very selective about what I start (check: back blurb, first page, general skim of book and if it's looks well-written, but so depressing that it may lead to suicide I actually Check The Ending, which goes against everything I believe in...except for not killing onesself over the ending of The Awakening, etc.).
Fun question, Nathan. Thanks, I'm kinda in a funk. You guys often brighten my day.

I used to be a "finish no matter what" reader, but I've gotten less indulgent as I've gotten older.

I don't decide to quit a book lightly, but generally, if I get 50-100 pages in and I'm having trouble coming up with good reasons not to put the book down, it's over.

I came across a recent post on Boxing the Octopus that talks about this issue and
The Rule of 50. Interesting idea.

Funny you should ask. I'm reading Wizard's First Rule right now - mostly because I loved the Legend of the Seeker television series and wanted to see what the books were like.

I know this is a beloved, bestselling fantasy series for some, but I have to admit... I'm really not enjoying this first book. I'm at the halfway point, though, and powering through it anyway, with the (futile) hope that it will in fact get better.

I've thrown two books against the wall. Given up on dozens more. Stayed with some even though I hated the characters, just so I could see them get their due. Holy crow, I hope no one throws my book against a wall!!

I usually power through. There is something about putting down a book half read. I just can't do it.
A friend of mine advises reading to page 50. If you are over 50 years old, subtract a page. So if you are 60, only read to page 40.

The only times I don't stop are when I'm more personally invested into it - i.e., it's something a close friend or family member read. Then I feel like I owe it to them to read it through . . . But I'll take my time about it if it's really bad.

I have to keep reading. If I park it on the shelf it sits there like a dirty little secret.
I've read with a book in one hand and a dictionary in the other or an atlas/photocopy of the map provided/scientific journals /physically acted out the scene to see how on earth it worked: I don't give up.

If I'm not impressed within the first hundred pages of a book I'm going to move to something else. If the book is only 200 pages long I might stick with it but any longer it stops being worth it.

I stop. Reading time is too precious when you're a mom to young children.

It's rare for me to stop, even now when my pile of books just keeps getting taller and taller.

Don't really know why, but I will push through all but the most awful books!

The thing about when you are younger is that "finishing" a book can be like an achievement or a marathon where making it to the end implies you are a winner, smart enough, educated, a person "who can complete things."
In addition, in high school, college, grad school, etc., we are given "required reading" whether we "like" it or not.
But eventually, we trust our own reading and we don't have to prove or achieve anything outside of our own interest, pleasure, understanding, etc.
Sort of like dating. You may not fall in love with everyone you go out to dinner with, however there comes a time when you don't date outside of what is, for you, "good material."

I usually power through, because it counts towards my Good Reads challenge!

It's not like it used to be, Nathan. I used to plow through. However, nowadays you can't be sure what you're reading unless you do a thorough background check on the book, the publisher, and the author.

For example, I downloaded a book on my e-reader without checking it out first. The back cover copy looked interesting, but that's all I had to go by when I purchased.

The book was awful. And when I checked it out online two days later I found it was self-pubbed and I was basically reading throught the slush pile.

Like I said, it's different nowadays.

I've given up on two books. One because the first ten pages of the novel described the forest. I was like okay, I'm done. The second was the charcters doing the same thing over and over from one house to the next. I was like ummm seriously if it was the same results at the school and the first two homes why would the third be different?this is the definition of insanity and I think I am going insane reading this. Ugh. Then I was pissed I spent money on it knowing I won't finish it.

I usually stop. There are so many books on my to-read list that I do not want to waste time on something I am not enjoying. I do give the author a generous amount of pages to try and entice me, but sometimes it just doesn't happen.

I buy millions of paperbacks and skim them to see how the author set up the dialogue, pacing, etc. Very few grab me enough to read cover to cover.

Right now they're stacked in double and triple rows in my bookshelves. I'd like to give them to the public library, but the library throws books in the trash.

There are far to many incredible books out there to read to bother with ones that don't catch my interest!

For me, it depends on what I dislike about the book and/or what I've heard about it. If the plot is boring or moving at a slow pace, but I've heard people say it gets better and is worth it, I'll power through. If the main character is aggravating me, I stop.

I've powered through books and thought the experience was worth it, and I've done the same and regretted every moment wasted on it. Other times, I powered through then decided the last forty pages couldn't possibly make up for what a miserable reading experience the 2-300 pages before it were. Then I go on to Amazon and see if I was the only one not feeling it, and I find out how it ended. There. Curiosity satisfied, time saved.

At the end of the day, there really are tons and tons of books that are/will be better then the one you currently don't like, so you have to decide which book(s) are worth your time and what you have to gain/lose from going on or quitting.

Most times, I quit, though.

I used to power through, but with so many books waiting to be jumped into on my nightstand, I have to admit I've been giving up on the ones that don't catch my interest with the first few chapters.

There are very few fictional themes I'm prepared to take up. There needs to be something very original or sweet or with fantasy elements for me to enjoy it - preferably with all three. Even if a book has all three of these, there's no guarantee it will sit right. The Harry Potter books I couldn't get into and never finished the first one. The Twilight books I liked more but, again, never finished the first one. I prefer non-fiction, usually spiritual. Well, I've no trouble finishing them.

I will admit that I could not get through Blindness. That was the first book that I let myself give up on. Just could not do it.

I've walked away from books before, but I don't do it often. I give them a chance, just like I'd want my readers to give me one day.

I voted that I stop reading, because I usually do.

But, if it's a book for which I had a review requested, I plow through. (Often while voicing my displease who anyone who will listen.)

I'm actually going to modify my answer.

If it's a book I made the decision to buy/rent/borrow, then I stop. I don't owe the author anything; it was my mistake to pick it up. (I don't usually blame the author; it's usually just that the book isn't for me.)

If it's a gift, then I plough through. I need to see what someone thought I'd like, so I can consider whether to delete their number from my cell phone.

I give almost every book until its halfway point. If I'm still not into it, its chance is lost. There's only one book that thoroughly bored me before the halfway point, and I did my best to give it a several-chapter go. It was sad day.

The only time a crap book gets a full read is if I've read previous works by the author and have enjoyed them. It's like listening to your friend's really boring story just because she's your friend. Most times, even though the book probably still sucks at the end, I'm happy to have supported my beloved author with the purchase and reading of their book.

I stop and don't look back because I usually have tons of other books that I really want to read so I won't waste time.

The exception is, if I sort of like a book but am not in the mood for that genre (if I start a fantasy but am in the mood for a mystery) then I will put it down and come back later.

I only stop if it's too hard to continue. If the book's boring me senseless, or if I have to wade through too much description or fluff or the writing style to get to the story.

I need option 3. :)

I used to always read to the end of a book. I saw it as a personal challenge, and hoped it would get better.

I still continue to read on, hoping it will get better, but in some cases I will eventually give up.

The first book I ever 'shelved' I loaned to a friend. I think she took it as a challenge, since she'd never heard of me putting down a book unfinished. She made it to the end. It didn't get any better.

I plough through. Especially if the book was a gift. Even if I don't end up liking the book, I feel like I learn something from every book I read. Sometimes reading a "bad" book can teach you what not to do in your writing.

I started to drop books when I started to trust my taste.

In my youth, I finished everything because I was learning the difference between good, bad, and what I like.

After many years of reading, I have more of a clue. I'm relieved to drop a frustrating book and move on to a fresh hope.

I find I learn the most as a writer from bogglingly excellent books. Mediocre ones drag me down.

If a book is clearly good but not working for me, I will persist a lot longer, trying to figure out why, and whether I just need to push my boundaries. This pays off occasionally.

I used to power through because I was young and thirsty for words, but I've learned that my time is worth more than I'm willing to waste.

On the plus side, my friends are awesome and recommend a lot of winners for my reading list. I haven't had to abandon a book in ages.

I power through only if it's already a favorite author and can trust that it'll get better--I love Dean Koontz, and have read nearly everything he's done, and although I powered through Odd Thomas, I really wish I had that time back.

I usually quit. There are too many books in the world for me to read, so why waste time on one I'm not enjoying? The only time I don't follow that is when someone's chosen a book for me, or given me a book that means something to them (especially a student - I'm an English teacher to 16-19 yr olds so books are a thoughtful thank-you/parting gift).

no, if it doesnt interest me right away, it goes back to the library. Too much junk being published now to waste my time. I used to think that one had to read the whole thing now, not so much

I still remember the incredible rush of power when (a few months after college graduation) i realized I didn't have to finish the book I was reading! What a concept, not-reading for pleasure!

I'm a stopper. Like you, I used to be a power-through-er, but I just don't have that kind of time. If I've absorbed most of the meat from it, that's one thing.

Honestly, though, I'm more of an audiobook junkie as I don't have as much time to read anymore (3 small kids at home so there's NEVER down time). I can listen to audiobooks in the car and finish a book a week up. Sometimes it's harder to just stop those because they're more expensive. :)

If a book is difficult but intriguing, I continue.

If it's incompetent, trite, or lame, I quit.

Curiosity is the key.

I said I stop, but there's a caveat: if it's a mega-selling blockbuster of a book, I power through to see what people are so excited about.

I power through. I picked it up for a reason … a good review, a recommendation from a friend, knowing I liked something else the author wrote. And for that reason, I want to finish. Even if it’s just so I can legitimately get in an argument with whoever told me to read it over how awful it was. Sometimes it takes me forever and I pick up a second (better) read, but I finish.

The only exception to this is library books. If a library book reaches its due date and it’s not good enough to check out again, I sadly let it go. But this has only happened a couple times.

I used to power through in my youth. Now, I know better. As The Librarian Nancy Pearl advised in a radio interview I heard: Life is too short so give a book about 50 pages, and if it doesn't click for you, move on to another book. For every year over 50 in your age, subtract a page.

I'm currently subtracting a few pages.

Reading a book is like getting to know a lover...you have to invest your love wisely....when I was younger, I could afford to waste my affection on fly-by-night tomes knowing that there would be the occasional Lord of the Rings or Tale of Two Cities to carry me in a long term relationship.
But now? I don't have the time or energy to invest in creating a relationship with a story if it's not satisfying me. Live and Learn. And I don't want to WRITE a story that doesn't seduce and ultimately satisfy my readers. I want my story and my characters to be faithful companions for the long run that will stick with my readers through thick and thin...Friends they can mentally and emotionally return to when the going gets tough. Now That's Love!

Funny - I just wrote about this exact same thing on my own blog (last week, beat ya!). I've decided life's too short for literary guilt. Move on...

I usually power through books I buy (can't waste money) but give up on books I borrow. Luckily, though, with books I buy, I usually know what I'm getting, so there is no need to worry about giving up on them--I enjoy them. I'm much less discerning with books I borrow (usually from the library), so I start many that I decide I'm not that into. Usually, though, I discover that the books I figure I'm not going to enjoy turn out to be excellent reads, which is why I choose a wide variety from the library.

I normally power through. Every now and then I might take a break, read a different book, and then come back and start all over.

But admittedly there is one book that I just cannot (and will not) finish. I was so excited to get my hands on it and finally start reading after all of the praise and good reviews that I had heard! But when I finally started to read The Bell Jar I just couldn't do it.

If I bought it or won it in a giveaway, I'll power through. I might as well since it's my own copy. However, a few years ago I bought an historical novel that was riddled with lazy inaccuracies, despite the fact that in her afterword the author practically bragged she had gone to great lengths to make the details accurate.

Because of that book, I'm a lot more careful now about what I buy. I read several reviews as well as actual samples from the book if they're available. Only then do I purchase the book. Now I rarely have to worry about putting down a book in the middle.

Both. If's it a book lent to me/highly rec'ed by a friend (or it's for class) I try to push through it. Everything else, I stop.

I stop. I have read a lot of books half way through. The last one I stopped in the middle was: The Breach. The story became too absurd for me to want to finish.

If the language has a rhythm I can't get into (like someone talking over you), I stop. For YA books that don't work, I rapidly skim through the rest, so I know what went wrong and do my best not to have MY writing turn out that way! :-)

I finish them, even when they're so bad it's driving me crazy. I never feel I can pass proper judgement on a book unless I've read the whole thing. Yes, there's a chance it'll get better, but if it's truly diabolical I know that's highly unlikely. But I have to get to the end so that I can look at the book as a whole and then sum up my feelings about it. I keep a journal of little reviews of all the books I read, and there's nothing more satisfying than summing up with a rant-infused diatribe just how bad a certain book was. And then I appreciate the next good book all the more for it.

I take a different approach. If it's not holding my interest, I also consider the mood I'm in. I'll put it aside for a few weeks, read something else and then come back to it. If it still fails to keep my interest, I give it to someone I think might enjoy it.

On the other hand, if it is one of my favorite authors, then out of loyalty, I might try it more than twice. But I simply won't finish something that can't keep me engaged.

I keep reading, not regularly because I believe the book will get better, but because I like to finish what I start. Even if it is the worst book I've read.

I wish there was an option for "It depends on the type of story and the way it's being told."

For the most part, I'm not a fan of chapter titles, but in certain books they work really well. (Quirky books with chapters like "In which our hero discovers he's a fish" for example.)

It's a stylistic choice... and I think as long as it really is a thoughtful CHOICE, and not just something the author does for the hell of it, it's fine.

Asimov had a great way to use titles that I haven't seen many others use.
He put titles on the big "Acts" of the book, maybe 10 or 20 but just numbered the other ones.
It let you know when you ran across a chapter with a title you were in for a major change and the numbers just broke up the scenes.

I like numbers in fancy script above a black line. If there are little mini-titles I start to wonder if the writer is really writer. Maybe chapter titles are a pseudo synopsis for the disorganized.

I can't remember the last adult book I read that included chapter titles. I enjoy them quite a bit in YA books, though.

I love chapter titles, both as reader and writer. They are extra work for the writer, but not the reader.

Each of the three books of my series has about sixty short chapters, averaging about 1,200 words each, all named and numbered and listed in several contents pages. My chapter titles comment, sometimes ironically, on what happens in each chapter, and the contents pages have the extra benefit of giving me a good guide to where I put things. Oddly, I found it easier to come up with 180 or so chapters titles than three titles for the three books!

But I have no Booger Bombs, Underwear Acid or Dog Poo Shoes! Yet...

I am absolutely for Chapter Titles. I agree with Natalie Whipple that the titles perk your interest in reading the next chapter. Some books really don't need them though. I think that it totally depends on the vibe of the book. For instance, Kiersten White's book, "Paranormalcy", is completely amazing with the chapter titles. It makes the book more playful and fun. Many of the older classic books that I have read lack the chapter titles. It may just be a new thing to incorporate titles into the chapters. At any rate, I like them. I am using chapter titles in the novel that I am writing just because I feel like they are needed to give a little glimpse into the coming chapter.

I'm of two minds about chapter titles. I think they're very useful especially when dealing with two POVs. They can help the reader to distinguish between one character and another, but unless they really add something to the story, I tend to find them distracting.

It's interesting though that my most recent work does have chapter titles because my agent thought they might help for the middle grade audience. But one of my beta readers felt they gave too much away.

So all of that to say... I don't know. I can take them or leave them. But mostly, I prefer to leave them.

I'm of two minds about chapter titles. I think they're very useful especially when dealing with two POVs. They can help the reader to distinguish between one character and another, but unless they really add something to the story, I tend to find them distracting.

It's interesting though that my most recent work does have chapter titles because my agent thought they might help for the middle grade audience. But one of my beta readers felt they gave too much away.

So all of that to say... I don't know. I can take them or leave them. But mostly, I prefer to leave them.

It depends. If they are something other than a number, I like what some authors do, giving the chapter title as the name of the POV character. That's what I did with my first. My second book needs to rely more on location, date and time, so I am using that for chapter titles.

I'm a sucker for a good title.

Always depends on the book. I will never forget, however, the chapter titled "The Kiss" in Louis Sachar's Sixth Grade Secrets. Juxtaposed with the chapter itself, it was utter brilliance. To this day, it still makes me cackle.

Thought I'd be in the minority, but I was pleased to see most people like chapter titles. (At least so far.)
I like to read the Table of Contents before I read the book. It's kind of like a preview, in a way, of the story you're about to read.

Julie Kingsley: Dog Poo Shoes?! Hilarious!! Where can I buy my 4th grader your book?!

How can you go wrong with a chapter title called "The Cannibal Tree" (from a Christopher Moore book)? I like chapter titles if they add another layer to the chapter's meaning.

I don't really notice them. My husband told me while reading my WIP that he likes chapter titles, for him they set the tone. So now I try to keep that in mind while I'm trying to come up with titles.

Inventing chapter titles is one of my greatest ways to prevaricate.
Closely followed by important research into character names and their meanings.

Word verification: ament - almost lament, but not quite.

With my personal writing, I normally didn't (yes, past tense) do chapter titles. I changed things up by doing them on the last project and . . . LOVE 'EM! Why? Well, the title says something about the chapter and, when I print out the ToC I basically have an outline of my story. Pretty nifty . . . if I do say so myself.

Depends on the book. If it's a complex book and chapter titles keep me from feeling confused or lost - it's very good they are there.

If it's a simple linear plot with one, maybe two, pov's, then they probably aren't necessary.

I don't mind them when they are there, and sometimes - again, with a simpler book - they add a certain sine qua non that gives a touch of panache to what might otherwise have been an ordinary story.

So I'm back to: It depends on the book.

I'm glad you asked this, Nathan, because I realize now that I'd assumed chapter titles had gone the way of printers' indicia (and printers, period). Nowadays, if we get any such thing as chapter titles, it's usually "data lines," the kind of thing that types out graphically on a film screen:
NEW YORK ... 3:02 A.M. TUESDAY ... THIRTY ALIEN SHIPS IN CONTACT

I loved the old style titles that ran along the lines of "Chapter the Third, in Which Mildred and Hortense Find Themselves Between a Rock and a Hard Place, and Learn That all Little Boys Aren't Made of Snakes and Snails, and Take That, Julie Kingsley."

While not looking to inflict such retrograde palaver on the world, I may consider using chapter titles, thanks to this poll. It seems to me they could help define the arc of action, as long as they're somehow integrated into the voice and concept of the work in question.

And isn't the work always in question?
-Porter

If they add to the book, I love chapter titles. Rick Riordan's chapter titles in the Percy Jackson series always made me smile, but Chapter 6: I Become Supreme Lord of the Bathroom made me laugh out loud.

In most cases, I just pass right over chapter titles and therefore prefer them to just be numbered. However when the chapter titles follow a theme like in Scott Westerfeld's The Last Days, then I really look forward to them because it's almost like a game :)

I've noticed while reading several different Stephen King novels that he has used different chapter formats in different novels. Sometimes a succint title, sometimes just a number, and at another time he might have a couple of sentences that address plot points covered in the chapter. I like the latter. It gives me a peek at what's to come and tends to make it harder to stop reading.

I'd like to put this to use in my own MS, but I'm not sure how well an agent/editor might receive it. After all, we're talking about Stephen King here. He has a lot more say than a debut novelist, I think. Also, I'm not that clever. :(

For me, I think it really depends on genre. As others have commented, chapter titles can sometimes give too much away, particularly in a tightly-crafted suspense/thriller. On the other hand, sometimes they add great flavor. I'm reading Joe Abercrombie's FIRST LAW trilogy right now, and he does an excellent job with chapter titles. Frequently they simply comprise a tiny snippet of dialogue that epitomizes the theme of the chapter or a particular character's development.

I think the most creative use of chapter titles I've seen is in Italo Calvino's IF ON A WINTER'S NIGHT A TRAVELER, in which the chapter titles join together to form one long sentence. Very appropriate for a tale about beginnings.

I like them only if they are funny. Serious ones don't work for me.

I love good chapter titles. It does depend on genre, though. And frankly, as a writer, I often leave them off. If I can't make them compelling and interesting then forget it. And if I don't have time, then... forget it.

Like Joseph said, I think the chapter titles should have an effect and a purpose. It's like every word in the novel should serve the story's purpose; so should chapter titles.

I don't think they are essential but I like them. Sometimes they offer little teasers that make me want to hurry through the pages just that tiny bit faster than I already am (assuming it's an engrossing book) to see what's going to happen next.

And, like swampfox, I like to peruse the Table of Contents just to get a flavor for the book.

Actually, now that I think about it, most of the authors I've read who used chapter titles used them to good effect.

Others, like Khaled Hosseini, didn't use them and it again seems an appropriate choice for the overall feel/tone of his books.

I'm with Joseph L Selby on this one - a chapter title with a function or metaphor/riddle is so cool! But - sometimes the riddle gives away the secret of the chapter and that's not good.

For a fast pace book I really don't like 'em. Just leave me with the story and action please!

It depends on the type of novel.

I love chapter titles if they fit the style of the book. GOING BOVINE is one of the best examples I've seen. Libba Bray's use of "In Which..." to introduce each chapter is unique, hilarious, and sets the tone beautifully. Of course Libba Bray is a genius, so of course she's going to choose amazing chapter titles!

Sometimes chapter titles work. For example, I loved them in Becoming Naomi Leon. And in Harry Potter they acted as a sort of teaser that made each chapter more fun to read the first time through. But if they don't serve a purpose, they just get in the way and end up taking me out of the story.

I like them if they're clever. I especially love the quasi-Victorian kind, e.g., "In which the Space Monkeys raid a Seven-Eleven and Discover Something Not to Their Advantage." But if they don't add anything, nix them!

In my own work, I sometimes use them and sometimes don't; depends on the style of the book.

Occasionally I'll notice them, but for the most part I just ignore the chapter title or lack-thereof and plow on to the story.

Clever chapter titles are all right, but in my experience, it's tough enough to come up with one good title for the whole book, let alone twenty or thirty others.

If they're totally flowing out of your fingers as you're typing along, great. But if you're forcing them, you'd probably be better off without them.

I can't think of them to save my life, but I love JK Rowling's chapter titles in all the Harry Potter books. She has a rare and beautiful gift for them.

Honestly, though, I don't usually notice them in other writers' works.

Totally depends on the type of story, but I think they can be almost a form of poetry where you like the sound of it (intrigues you to read farther) but don't understand it fully until you have read the chapter.

Lord of the Rings chapter titles, for example, went on to inspire movie score track names, DVD chapter menu titles, and many other things because of their quality.

It's a way for the author to comment on his work to the reader, like an aside in a play. I enjoy everything from "Chapter 9: On Water Beetles and Saber-rattling, Including a Brief Treatise on the Qualities of Pseudo-Semantics" to "Chapter 21: Death from Above!"

It depends on the story. I find chapter titles help when they fit into the style of writing. Chick Lit is a good example.
In a thriller, or any fast paced book, I don't stop to read titles.

I've always liked long, evolved chapter titles. Since buying an e-reader, I crave them. If I hit "go to", a chapter number just isn't enough of a clue to get me to the right spot.

I like them when they're well done, especially witty, and don't give anything away, but I find these incredibly hard to do....

Also, in multi-POV novels (as was previously mentioned) they can be a life-saver, and if the story is skipping around through time or place titles can help start the reader off right..

I can take them or leave them, both as a reader and a writer. I like them if they're evocative and intriguing without giving too much away, or if they're humorous; either case will make me want to read on. But I hardly notice or care if they're not used, or if they're rather boring. I skipped right over them in JONATHAN STRANGE AND MR. NORELL, for example, but liked them quite a lot in the Harry Potter books, and as someone above mentioned, found them quite useful in George R.R. Martin's A Song of Ice and Fire series.

I not only like chapter titles, I like it when the put little quips at the beginning.

I suppose I like them when they're well done, like that they can give hints (no matter how obscure) about what is to come. (Though, the chapter title "Phoenix's Lament" all but told me straight-out that Dumbledore was going to die in Harry Potter, and I didn't want to know in advance.) But at the same time, I don't miss them when they're not there.

When I'm writing, however? I always give at least a one-word title to my chapters because it makes it easier for me to find specific scenes later on if I need to rework them.

I've got to admit, I like them when they're clever, when they're goofy not so much. For example, I really like the ones in "Getting to Happy" and thought the ones in "Breaking Dawn" were kinda goofy. But that's just me. I don't do my chapter titles until the book is done, and only if I'm really feeling titles. I'm on my third book and so far 2 out of 3 have titles.

I title every chapter when I write. When I am reading, I love to figure out what words of the chapter makes the title significant. I view titles as a teaser, an insight of what is to come.

I like quirky, meaningful, and/or abnormal chapter titles; but most of the times, I don't actually notice them as I read.

In some books, I appreciate chapter titles. Books like The Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter benefit from their chapter headings, which can ground the reader in a book as long as the former or illuminate the text as they sometimes do in the latter.

But in other fiction, particularly literary fiction which comprises most of my reading, I really dislike chapter titles. I don't even like numbered chapters most of the time, preferring simply a new page with the text beginning mid-page, as in A Mile Down by David Vann.

If they're used well, I do like epigraphs or quotations at the beginning of chapters.

I guess you could say I have mixed feelings. If they're well done, I look at them. The ones that get me are those such as John Maberry uses in his Joe Ledger novels, where they are not so much titles as times and locations. As far as my own writing goes, I'm horrible at titles so I won't use them on my chapters. Just numbers for me, thank you.

I love them. I always study them and see if I can guess how they relate to what's to come.

Like so many others here, I enjoy chapter titles when they are well done. As for my own WIP, I have titles for each of my chapters because they tell ME what is covered in that chapter. They just popped up while I was working on the outline. Not sure if they will stay or go. Some will definitely require revision if they stay, but some of them are fun or ironic or both. So maybe they will get to stay.

Can't stand them. I think they are stupid, honestly.

I'm reading a good thriller right now and my only complaint so far are the chapter titles, which are alternating between on-the-nose and baffling.

Just say no.

It depends on the story. Sometimes I skip right over them or I'm fine with simple numbers. In some books, they really contribute to the story, by making you think about connections.

I voted that I skip past them, but more accurately: I forget them. Or I can't keep them in my head (I'm making myself sound really absent-minded, -sigh-). Especially the ones that go, "Chapter Eleventy-One: In which this, this, this, this, and this happen." If I remember the entire thing, then I've got spoilers. If I do not remember the entire thing, then I'm inevitably distracted while reading because I have this urge to flip back every few pages and check my progress through the title list. Weird.

I love the idea of chapter titles. They can be suspenseful enough to make me keep reading, even when I know I should put the book down--or beautifully written in a way that just enhances the manuscript. If I'm really absorbed in a book, though, I don't even notice them, and I hate when an author tries to be clever in their chapter titles, but doesn't quite get it right. It starts the next section of the book with a feeling of, "Oh. Why would I want to read about that?"

Personally, I only use chapter titles (and loooong ones) during NaNoWriMo ;D

I say either do fantastic chapter titles or none at all. Titles like "At the bookstore" or "Mary makes a friend" are worse than useless.

Chapter titles need to add to the story in some way, the same way every word in the story needs to be there for a reason.

If the chapter title makes me laugh, or adds suspense, or cleverly sets the tone of the chapter, then it's all good.

Otherwise, just leave blank and get on with the story.

I've noticed a lot of shorter chapters and lack of naming in kids books lately (including YA)...trend?

I like chapter titles. I think some are very relevant and worthwhile, whereas others really suck. A lot.

Like, JK Rowling's chapters are good. Very good in fact. I always read hers.

But others are just....terrible. I can't think of any outright examples, but I certainly have read a few and thought to myself "yeesh, what where they thinking?"

If novels were ladies, then chapter titles would be eyeliner. Some can rock it and some can't

I usually skip right over chapter titles. Two exceptions: I got Deathly Hallows on the night of the midnight release, and I read every single page from beginning to end. So I literally read the dedication, and then the chapter titles, etc.

I always skipped Twilight's chapter titles (they were usually one-word, vague blandness that didn't matter) until Jacob's part in Breaking Dawn. He had the most HILARIOUS chapter titles, and I enjoyed them very much. And once I realized that Stephenie Meyer actually chose her chapter titles as Bella would have chosen them, I went back and read all of the previous chapter titles and was sort of awed at how Bella-esque they all were. I'm not a Twihard, but I just found that sort of neat.

I love chapter titles. If well done, they can tell you so much...kind of like a great pitch.

Chapter 1, Chapter 2, etc. I ignore. If an author gives me some verbiage, I pay attention.

Personally, I like chapter titles beyond numbers since I'm a fan of pun-ishment. Those readers who ignore my titles lose out on some of the fun.

Most of the time I kind of don't like them. They distract me, like, "Ooh how does this random word play fit into this chapter I wonder?" and I go in expecting something that I'm probably going to be wrong about.

Or worse, the chapter title gives something away I'd rather have found out on my own.

I have seen some cool uses for chapter titles before when they serve a function to the story. I've seen them used well to indicate time/place when the passage of time or the moving from place to place is important to the story.

I like titles--and voted accordingly. But I'm really wondering what agents think! How did you vote, Nathan?

In non-fiction they have purpose, but not in fiction.

I don't care for chapter titles. They wake me up and remind me that I'm reading a book. I don't like being pulled out of the story magic.

Well done chapter titles (especially if there's a table of contents) help me keep the story straight in my head.

Or even better, they help me find that one thing that guy said before they got on the airship, that didn't seem to mean anything at the time, but now I get it and I want to see what else I missed!

That said, though, I have no preference. I'll read anything. It's just that I remember a story better if the chapters are titled well.

Yes, although I don't usually give chapt titles a lot of thought, they make it easier if I'm reading more than one book at a time. And if I am explaining the book to another person I can find the subject matter with ease.
Right now I'm more upset with not being able to log on Fri night.
uhmmmmm......ms.gail5325

Chapter 5: I love them when they are witty and intriguing, hate them when they are spoilerific!

I don't really notice chapter titles one way or another, except for Gene Stratton Porter's (early 20th-century Indiana novelist and naturalist) books, where her chapter titles read like this: "Wherein Freckles Strives Mightily and the Swamp Angel Rewards Him." I mean seriously...how can you resist that kind of an invitation to read on?

It depends. Most of the time, if I'm really into the story, I don't even notice them. [Often I don't even notice the numbers!] But if there's a huge passage of time, or POV switch or suddenly we're "back in the 1800s" when we've been in the 1980s--I like a little heads up (nevermind why we'd be darting between the 1800s and the 80s)

And I never use chapter titles of my own. I feel it kind of pegs me down and spells out something that doesn't need to be spelled out. (hopefully).

I especially like the kind similar to the scene titles used in the sitcom FRASIER. Great wit.

Sometimes I love them. Sometimes I ignore them. But I never hate them.

Personally, it depends upon the book. As a rabid fan of an incredibly popular series, I was one of the fans who go crazy trying to figure out what the chapter titles might tell us about the forthcoming book.

Except in that case, I don't really pay that much attention.

I don't miss them if they're not there, but I like them when they're clever. I love the way Stephanie Meyer changed her chapter titles in Breaking Dawn when the POV changed to Jacob. I don't have them in my WIP but if I think of something suitable and witty at some point in the process, I won't hold back.

I love chapter titles mainly because of Robert Aspirin. His Myth series always had a humorous quote from a famous or supposedly famous person to go along with his title. When all you have is a chapter number I have no idea what to expect or where things are heading in the story. That may sound silly but I like to have little clues as to what is in store for me.

Blessings,
Daniel L Carter
Author of The Unwanted Trilogy

The most common argument against chapter titles seems to have to do with leaving the flow of the story uninterrupted. But if that's the concern, why have chapters at all?

Chapter titles, when properly done, add fantastic accent to a story. Harry Potter was mentioned by other commenters, and it certainly contains some of the most well-conceived chapter titles in modern literature. But if you were to step back a hundred years and peruse The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, how could you not want to read a chapter dubbed 'The House of Death Floats By' or 'All Full of Tears and Flapdoodle'?

I think it's up to the author in that it represents a style of writing. I enjoy them, though I can live with out as well.

In children's books for example, they can serve to give the younger reader a sense of what's coming I've noticed as well.

Furthermore it can be a humorous thing that gives one the sense of the absurd, or say in horror or dramatic writings it gives one a sense of the emotional content you may feel in the coming reading, further adding to the emotional content of the book reading.

Overall, it depends on the book and the author and I honestly think they still have a credible place in today's books.

Some books I've loved them (Stardust by Neil Gaiman) and others I could take 'em or leave 'em (Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery), but generally speaking, I'm a fan. Strangely enough, though, for a reader who loves chapter titles, I almost never use them in my own writing.

When they're great, they're great. Whether they're quotes, original witticisms or just the name to clarify the speaker/POV. I like them best when they express something deep, funny and seemingly unrelated to the writing...until you finish the chapter. And then, "Wow, that was brilliant."
I tended to use them, but felt they were out of favor. Now I'm trying to remember what I deleted because WHO THE HECK CARES WHAT'S OUT OF FAVOR?! This is MY book, Jack. 'Kay, I feel better now.
Possibly I was being a wuss--oh, the pressure of being brilliant for 70+ chapter titles. (No pressure 'til I overthought the whole thing.)
Chris Moore's often astound me.
Them's my two cents, NickB

word ver: opaches: Members of the Apache Nation as lead by Oprah.

I dislike chapter titles as they are usually telling me what's ahead and I want to find out for myself. Especially in very old books which can list all the things about to happen and that really annoys me.
Chapter titles are an interruption An aggravation.
Hey, I guess I don't like them! (:

I enjoy them when they're well done: adding a touch of mystery so that I'm curious about the chapter to come. The end of a chapter is a good place to put a book down, so if a chapter title piques my interest to read on, it has done its job. One of my favorite books with chapter titles is Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell.

But the writing within the chapter can do that just as well. In that case, I don't particularly care if the chapters are simply numbered.

One thing I do dislike: poetry verses at the top of chapters. It breaks the flow of the story for me, as they are in a different voice and I need to shift mental gears to read them. I like poetry, so if I find the verses well-written, I'll skip them while reading the book and then go back and read the all verses straight through. Same goes for jokes/witty quotes at the top of chapters.

I've tried reading the verses/jokes first and the book last, but I have a bad habit of glancing below the title and ruining future plot events for myself. I call this my "wandering spoiler eye." :)

I use single/double word titles, as a way of indicating for myself that this is where the story takes another turn, and what kind of turn. Picture: Plunder, Discovery, Pursuit, About Face, Denouement. I haven't even told you what my WIP is about, and you already have a feel for the story. Granted, these are the standard parts of any good adventure, but how often do our readers actually think about that?

For me it depends. My own WIP jumps back and forth through time and space so much I find chapter headings to be invaluable, but titles I can take or leave, depending on how witty or hilarious they are (for reference I tend to enjoy reading them, but can't write them that way to save my life).

I am on the fence about them. In the case of YA and Middle Grade Fiction I think that they aren't needed but a good edition to the story. I remember reading books as a kid and before I would read the chapter I would the title and try to find the meaning in the chapter. It was just something that I found to be engaging.

Now though, when it comes to what I read now, I think that they just get in the way. I don't know if it is because I have become impatient. So here I am sitting on the fence and my vote is for Yes in some cases and No in others. By the way with my impatience has come indecisiveness.

I only like them if they can be done well. I need them numbered, to keep me from going insane, but any farther, and it really has to be done right to make it good. And of course in saying that, I'm being picky, as "right" is subjective.

Like, to me, a chapter title lies around the same lines as song titles and episode titles. I hate it when they're like a quote from said chapter/song/episode. Sometimes I like them a bit more obscure, like outside references.

Long story short, I prefer them just numbered

When used properly, chapter titles are an absolute treat and make me feel closer to the story/author as a reader.

But on a few occasions, after having paid attention to the chapter title and wondering as to its significance, I've been let down because either 1) I am unable to figure out exactly WHAT the author intended by the title (this tends to make me feel like I'm missing the entire point of the writing, which is not a good thing as it may make me think twice about picking something up by the same writer), or 2) I'm completely in awe of the mysteriousness of the title and strive to figure it out.

I realize this is a bit of a catch 22, but really, if I have a choice between an author who is a pompous twit with a fabulous story-telling gift or a newcomer with an equal talent who can relate to the reader? i will go with the new comer every time.

I try to title my chapters, but it doesn't always work. As far as chapter titles in published books, I don't really pay attention. (Except in the Harry Potter books, because those were always interesting.)

Interesting topic ,,, I think of chapter titles as very old fashioned, and love them in those older books, but they seem extraneous and too "cute" in modern works.

Very interesting question. I like them when they seem to fit--my 8-year-old son loves them, as they signal either the beginning or the end of a chapter he's supposed to read.

They're kind of like headlines, but as noted, somewhat old fashioned.

The Autobiography of U.S. Grant, commissioned and published by Samuel Clemens, makes excellent use of them. They sometimes help to focus the reader, as a topical sentence.

But mostly, in my own stuff, I use merely Roman numerals--another somewhat old fashioned convention, but serving much the same purpose, as it shows the reader progression is being made...

Sorry. Somewhat distracted. Watching the Bears walk over my beloved Packers...

It depends.

As a reader I have no fuss. If the story is a page turner I don't even take note of the chapter titles.

As a writer I honestly find no need to them. One day maybe I will use them. But for now they're just there for the sake of being there.

I like them. When done right, they give a little flavor of the chapter ahead and a little pull to get me to keep reading.

Think about all the great title chapters just in the Harry Potter books:

Book 1, Chapter 1: The Boy Who Lived
Book 1, Chapter 3: The Letters from No One
Book 1, Chapter 17: The Man with Two Faces

Again, when done right they can be very effective.

I usually don't pay attention to chapter titles, but when they're funny I can't resist. For example, the Percy Jackson series has hilarious chapter titles.
Chapter 1: "I Accidentally Vaporize My Pre-Algebra Teacher"
I mean, come ON! Who can resist a title like that? Although I admit that I might be biased, I never did like Pre-Algerbra.

I love chapter titles if they are indicative of the writing style. For instance, "The House of Drainage, Embalming, and Beautification" makes fun of a somber place. Reflects the subtitle of the novel, a dark comedy.

I skip right past them, not on purpose, but just to get to the next part. I won't even notice them. But if I love the book, I'll read it again - sometimes right after I finish. Then I'll enjoy and savor the chapter headings.

I don't even like writing chapters, to be honest. My stories come out in a series of scenes, and I end up arbitrarily chopping those into 10-15 chunks of chapters around 5-10K words long as part of the editing process. The book, for me, is a linear and cohesive whole, and if it weren't for what everyone else thought, I'd leave chapters out entirely and just have my spaces between scenes.

Nah I don't like them or need them. Numbered is fine :) Least then I can say 'just till next chapter then I zzz'

http://damselinadirtydress.blogspot.com

If the book is flowing nicely and it can't be put down, then I don't find there is really any need to be looking at the name of the chapter I'm itching to read next.

I wouldn't say they were always necessary. I like them when they're funny or witty and fit in with the style of the rest of the book, I don't like them when they just look pretentious. You're probably safer without them, unless you know you can really make them work.

I like chapter titles in theory, but in practice I tend not to notice them.

I'm pretty ambivalent on chapter titles. But (for all you Potter fans out there) the best use of them I've seen is in a book called "Go Quest, Young Man" by K.B.Bogan.

Each Chapter title has 2 Titles and the second is a piss-take of the first while also sending up a Fantasy story cliche. The book is really brilliant, can't believe she never wrote anything else! Part Pratchett, part Potter, all good!

I think chapter titles are great if they mean something, but they're not necessary. Sometimes I go back mid-chapter and try to figure out what the (bleep bleep) is the connection between the title and what's going on in the story. When I figure it out, I feel smart. When I don't, I just get irritated and wish they'd leave off titling.

There are such things as Chapter Titles? o___0

I particularly love clever ones in YA--Rick Riordan has the best chapter titles EVER, though I also remember spending time before the release of Half Blood Prince--CHAPTER titles were released and it was great fun to debate what they meant. In adult books they don't always seem necessary, but sometimes are nice.

Gotta love chapter titles. There's just something a tad more more creative about them than 1, 2, 3, etc., etc...

Chapter titles can set a certain tone. They work well if the novel is light or comic. I'm not sure they do much in more serious fiction.

I do love them though.... As my current project is both light and comic, I've enjoyed trying to set just the right tone with fun (hopefully funny) chapter titles

I skip chapter titles. In fact I usually don't even notice when I start a new chapter, especially if the book has really drawn me in.

Chapter titles are something I notice after I read the book when I go back through and look at the table of contents and think "oh, I see what the author did there. Clever."

I like chapter titles when used in the following two ways:

1. To add humor, ie Diana Wynne Jones (HOWL'S) or Patricia Wrede (DEALING WITH DRAGONS).

2. To clarify POV, ie George R.R. Martin

I love chapter titles when they are intriguing and well chosen, like in Oscar and Lucinda.

The last time I even noticed anything at the top of a chapter was in the 80s when I was reading Robert Asprin's "Mythadventures" series. He used quotes to good effect; they sounded important and profound, but when read in the context of the story's action at a given point, they took on a humorous, often ironic meaning.

When done that way, chapter titles are good; they add to the story. Long chapter titles or those that reveal too much are simply a distraction.

A good chapter title will suck the reader right on into the chapter to find out what that title means. My favorite chapter titles were written by Earl Emerson. He doesn't use them in every book, but when he does: SO effective.

This blog, Nathan, goes into your chapter titled "It's So Hard To Get a Rise Out of People."
:-)
-p.

I'll read them, but for the most part I don't pay attention to them. I certainly don't use them in my own writing; coming up with a book title is hard enough! To come up with nifty chapter titles every few pages...no thanks. :P

Usually, chapter titles annoy me, but they don't keep me from continuing to read. Once in a while, I come across a book where the chapter titles just seem to fit. So, consider chapter titles carefully.

I think chapter titles can be practical during the writing process, if only to allow easy reference to events that happen during that chapter. It's easier to find that chapter where cake leads to hijinks when you have a chapter titled 'Cakescapades', for example.

In terms of published books, I could go either way. If the author's particularly clever with their chapter titles, then more power to them. Certainly, they do no worse harm than possibly running the risk of spoiling a major event in a chapter. Usually, I find chapter titles most helpful in rereads and that sort of thing, when I'm looking for specific passages.

Rick Riordon is a prime example of a writer who understands how to create a chapter title. His are hilarious and dead-on for his market readership.

Joan Didion uses them to good effect in the beginning of "Play It As It Lays." The novel starts with several short chapters each in the voice of one of the primary characters. Those chapters are titled with the person's name to clue the reader that she/he is the narrator.

I'm wondering about how chapter titles even began...Perhaps they trace back to when novels were serialized, eg. Dickins. Presumably each new serialized publication would have a unique title and writers adopted that practice for published full length works.

I'm in favor of chapter titles, especially when they tempt the reader to read on to find out what they mean.

I look at the list of chapters before I read the book. It's one way to pique my interest.

I love them. But I have such a hard time thinking of ANY title (even title for the novel) there's no chance I'll ever have titles for each chapter.

Chapter titles?

A simple Chapter 27 is best.

But if editors want chapter titles (and they write the cheques) they these must be crafted as carefully as a newspaper headline.

And editors may want the chapter titles to adhere to policy on title lines. This is common in children's books, I think.

I don't mind them. I like them if they're there since some serves as POV pointers it helps me to get into the right mindset before I start the chapter. If there're none, they aren't miss.

dickens. 'nuff said.

Chapter titles would be nice if publishers would bother putting them in the page headers in the book. They make more sense when you can see what the darned title is as you read. But no, you get the book title and a page number. And I don't flip back and forth (unless I don't like the book anyway and am going to put it down). So they're lost on me.

You know... I've been wondering about the necessity of chapters at all. Where did that structure come from? Granted if you're switching story lines from one character to another an asterisk break or simply a gap would work, but then you might as well do a chapter break. Still, I think the idea of chapters causes too many writers/authors to fall into the trap of preconceived structural norms. They become afraid of a chapter getting too long or being too short, which really it should just be about what best serves the story. Out with chapters, I say! Unless they serve a distinct function that makes the story better.

I love chapter titles to death! I feel like the chapter titles tell me something about the book and, in turn, the author. The chapter title sets the mood for the chapter, and kind of tells me what to expect.

As an author, I use chapter titles for various reasons. When I intended on using my novel, I'M SORRY, as a series, I used one word chapter titles for it, then used two word chapter titles for the sequel. When the sequel fell through, I used Japanese words and their translations for the chapter titles. For my current work, I find an interesting line of 3 or 4 words from the chapter and use that as the title.

I feel like it adds an intriguing, fun feel to a novel when the author takes the time to properly name each chapter.

I either love chapter titles or they irritate me and pull me out of the flow of the story.

One the whole, I like them ... now I'm wondering why I don't use them in my own writing more.

Love chapter titles. A teaser clue to the mystery, romance, adventure. Thrill me with Trivia. Go Liaden all the way. They do short stories as teasers. But love the worldbuilding trivia.

Seems to depend on the book itself. To do so in an 80-chapter crime thriller seems a bit... gratuitous, perhaps? But for a 25 chapter novel whose focus is a bit more on using metaphor, investigating character, etc. it could well be magnificent device to enrich the overall experience.

I love the way chapter titles can add a whole new dimension to a work. Sometimes they clue us into the upcoming plot points. Other times they add another layer of meaning or create a subversive twist.While a book title is important for drawing people in, chapter titles can be intricate and valuable tools to add to plot. After completing a chapter and after completing a book, I often enjoy flipping back and reading the chapter title again.

One book I've read recently where I enjoyed the chapter titles was "Fat Vampire" by Adam Rex.

I love chapter titles...as long as someone else writes them. They're clever and when I tell myself that I'm going to stop at the next chapter, they usually convince me that I really need to read just one more so that I can figure out what the title means.

However, I can't, for the life of me, write them for my own WIPs.

I find numbers impersonal. Anyone can write Chapter 1, Chapter 2. That said, in a 200,000 word book with 80 chapters, I can see why the author would not bother with titles.

I think personal titles have a function beyond breaking up the prose. They can make the reader curious about what's going to happen in the chapter. I also think chapter titles can structure the work. I'm not sure how traditional it is, but one of my chapter titles is "Three Days Later," the last chapter is "The End." It's a bit meta, but it does give the chapter titles a function.

I like titles. I like reading them, and I like writing them. For some books. Where appropriate.

Does I really don't mind count?

As long as they are good, subtle titles, they work. One can always sense when the writer has not thought them through. So... fine.

I just self-published a little novella of mine, and yes, social media has been an integral part of my marketing and selling copies. :)

It works for some, not for others, I think.

Social media helps to a certain degree, but it's not everything. I've found that it's more of a way to communicate with readers in different parts of the world than anything else. They feel more comfortable sending pm's on facebook instead of e-mails.

People get tired of SN like FB. They get bored and move on to the next best thing. But the interesting thing is there are still new people just discovering these social networks so I don't think it's going to disappear soon. It seems to go in cycles. The same people will be addicted for weeks, or months, then they drop off and a new batch pops up.

Places like FB are also good places to look up authors to see what they write and what they are about. I do it all the time, and I know people do it with me.

I can just about say that I owe my career to social networking sites.

All the fiction I've bought this month I found out about, or was reminded of, through social media. Just sayin'.

Without blogs telling me about books, I'd miss many of the new ones. Looking on bookstore shelves is fun, but much more time consuming. I buy based on recommendations from bloggers, friends and family, and the workers at my local bookstore.

I definitely think social media helps sell books. The only reason I bought Looking For Alaska was because I'd read your analysis of John Green's character development on this blog (thank you for featuring him, by the way; that book is now one of my favorites!). I've also bought several books simply because I saw my friends discussing them back and forth on my facebook news feed, and they sounded like interesting reads. Social media is an easy way to spread the word on hot new reads to the masses - if they're listening.

The last two books I bought were ones I learned about on twitter.
Emma Rathbone, The Patterns of Paper Monsters and Therese Walsh, The Last Will of Moira Leahy. Both very good!

If you believe that authors can sell their books to readers, then you have to believe in social media. However, the internet is millions of people all screaming for attention. It's very difficult to get strangers to read your content; to build up a regular audience of blog readers you have to produce worthwhile posts on a near-daily basis. If you can somehow manage to become an internet celebrity, it will help your book sales. But that's kind of a long shot.

It's a little easier to get people to follow you on Twitter, but it's not clear that Twitter followers convert into book buyers in any significant percentage.

Social networking can't hurt, unless you say horrible things and embarrass yourself. But if you're looking at it as part of a business strategy, it probably yields less than $1 in earnings for every hour spent. If you enjoy blogging and tweeting, do it. But the author is probably better off letting the publisher do the marketing; his time is better spent writing the next book.

I never, ever, ever try to get people to go to my blog from here, but I JUST BLOGGED ABOUT THIS THIS MORNING! Basically, I looked at the top ten books on the NYT Bestseller list for MG and YA, and I looked up the authors and worked out how long they've been blogging/tweeting/facebooking/etc., and then I looked up the date of their debut novel's release.

Only one of the top ten books currently in the NYT list was written by an author who had not already established a significant online presence before the publication of their debut novel. Only one.

So, yeah, I think social networking helps sell a debut novel. After that, a lot depends on how good the debut novel was. But to get the first book into people's hands, social networking seems to play a pretty big role. Look at Kiersten White's PARANORMALCY, for example. Another is THE SECRET YEAR - I only bought it because you had talked about it and it was by one of your clients.

It also largely depends on knowing who your social stream audience is. I became a heavy twitter user as a librarian, and there are still a ton of librarians there and on friendfeed. When my first book came out, those professional connection helped me because many did not just buy my book, they bought two copies and donated one to their library. If you follow people willynilly without a plan, plugging a book can be annoying; if you're someone people feel they know, they'll give you more latitude and be supportive. it's not a replacement for building relationships with people, it's just another tool you can use to do so.

I'm the wrong person to ask. I don't blog, am not on Facebook, don't tweet. Or Tweet. Whatever. Any my house is overflowing with books so I'm trying to use the library more these days. I read books because I hear about them from friends, or because I already admire the author's work, or I see a review that piques my interest in NYRB or the Sunday book section of the 3 newspapers I read, etc. etc. Yes, I'm aware that makes me a Luddite. There's something that feels awfully "me-too" about the corporate use of social media, though; I mean, I'm just not sure what I'd stand to gain from following Trader Joe's on Twitter.

I haven't yet bought any books that I have discovered from social media, though I have encountered some unpublished writers whose books I would seriously consider if they ever did get published. Also, I have found a couple on Authonomy that I would certainly buy if only some publisher was paying attention and picked them up.

I use FB quite a bit, mostly to keep current on trends, who the new agents are, what's being overdone, etc. When I'm stuck, I get good advice from FB friends. I'm not using FB to sell my books, since it's mostly other impoverished writers plus the occasional agent or editor, but maybe it'll eventually help start a buzz going.

In short, yes, social media does help sell books.

Why? Because we're reaching out to people who wouldn't already know us and sharing, connecting, BUILDING RELATIONSHIPS!

Word-of-mouth is the NUMBER 1 way books are STILL sold. Online that translates to word-of-mouse.

Like always, these referrals come from trusted sources.

When a stranger refers a book to you would that make you run out and get it?

Probably not. Not until you created a connection with this stranger. And voila! This stranger is now your friend. Or at least someone whose advice you value. (To the degree that you trust them, right?)

The operative word in your question is HELP.

Social media is just one way out of many that we can connect with others, introduce them to ourselves, and our books, and increase the possibility of making sales.

(Two-cents over...)

I'm reading Rock Paper Tiger right now because of your blog and Lisa Brackman's tweets.

Here on the other side of the world (Thailand), social media is all I have to tell me what books are any good. I can't browse a bookstore (unless I want to buy Harry Potter or Twilight, I guess), and there are few things more tedious than "browsing" Amazon when you don't already know what you want.

Well, I hope so:)Social media and mom blogs is my only plan to sell my new educational picture books! Don't tell me I need plan B and C! Yikes.

If someone whose opinion I value gives me a good book review, I'll likely buy the book. Whether they send me an email or message on facebook or a homing pigeon, it doesn't matter.

Social media just makes it easier to get a message out. Of course, if the recommendation is biased at all, ie someone who'll profit from the book sales, it goes straight to the delete box.

Anonymous 2:17 pm, Lynn Viehl deducted her agent's commission, her estimate of her own expenses, and her personal income tax to arrive at a 'net income' of about half her $50,000 advance.

$453,839.68 divided by 61,663 net sales equals $7.36 per copy sold of a mass market paperback listed at $7.99, and so is probably the gross sales less the author's royalty rather than the publisher's gross profit. The publisher paid Viehl about 11% of the gross sales to that point.

Various commenters on the Genreality site also queried Viehl's maths. Likewise Nathan's analysis (which he links to above) at the time, which was nearly a year ago.

BTW, I do consider a 6% to 8% author royalty too low, and would happily pay 10% more for books if it went to the authors!

I might as well throw my opinion in, too, for what it's worth.

I love facebook for the fun of playing games with my favorite authors and top A/Es. I appreciate status updates that are funny, poignant, or informative. I like the Networked Blogs feature, but all of those page and event invitations are a waste of time. I don't have time to make the rounds to visit all of them.

I think the thing I find the most useful (other than the all-important researching) is blog posts from A/Es. I keep up with my favorite authors and critique buddies, as well. Other than that, I believe the Internet is a huge vortex. It can suck you in and never spit you back out.

Professionals, including publishers, telling authors to get actively involved in online social networking a year before your book comes out is like telling people to try crack a few times on weekends to see if you don't get more out of listening to music.

Nathan, since I'm buying your book as a result of following your blog, I voted yes. Apparently, it's working for you. :) The real question is, to what extent does it work? How many people are buying your books due to social media? 1? 10? 1000? 10,000?
I wonder...

In the last two months, I have purchased two books that I only found out about from social media. There's a third I'm keeping my eye on for the next time I have spending money.

However, when I was extolling the virtues of Twitter to a fellow author, her comment was, "It was made for personalities like yours." If Twitter/Facebook/Blogging only work for a select group of writers, it stands to reason that it will only work for a select group of readers. A solid marketing campaign has to go beyond the social media craziness, or there are people who will never hear of our books.

I like to purchase my friends' books, which usually equates to the blogs I read. Of course, if I knew them in real life, I'd be just as compelled to read their books (so the social networking aspect isn't why I buy the books). Otherwise, I find out about books the old-fashioned way (word of mouth or in a bookstore).

Since I'm a teen and I write YA, I tend to focus on the social networking things that I would want MY favorite authors to do. Before I decided to tweet as a "wannabe writer," I didn't have a Twitter and didn't know a single teen who did. I never use my Twitter. It's just not an teen thing, and since I'm trying to reach teens, it's pointless.

Quite frankly, I don't think young adults go trawling for books based on author's web pages. It works the opposite way - I look up my favorite authors' webpages if I liked their books in the store.

It's always nice to see blog posts (especially ones about writing) from my favorite authors. It makes me all giddy inside, and makes me appreciate them even more for what they do. In that scenario, the author gets brownie points, I'm more likely to check back for updates, and I'll be more likely to buy their next book (or at least know about the author's upcoming releases).

I tend to buy books because I either see them at a store (or online) and think they look interesting, or because someone recommends them to me.

I've never bought a book based on Facebook or Twitter or anything of that sort. To be honest, I've only ever even looked up two or three authors online, unless we're talking about going to Amazon or Wikipedia to find more books they've written. And one of those is my favorite author and it's because he's hilarious and I love reading his interviews.

It depends. The Facebook Kindle page can definitely sell books. If I post on there, I almost always get some sales. Problem is, the board moves very quickly and nobody scrolls down for older posts.

Twitter--I'm sure it can for some, but I'm Twitter-impaired. I have one. I tweet, but I don't get all the hashmarks and such.

My book is only available as an ebook, so I concentrate my efforts in places where people who have ereaders hang out, consequently, I spend a lot of time on the Amazon forums now. Just by participating, and not even posting often about my own book, I can get sales as there's a good mixture of readers and authors.

I'd love to say my blog helped sell books, but it doesn't. My blog buddies are supportive, but I can only trace maybe a dozen sales back to my blog in three months. Not that expect followers to buy the book, but there's been limited word of mouth there.

I'm more likely to have my book mentioned in an Amazon thread with a direct link given by the poster to my Amazon page. That sells books.

Social media sells books to customers who use social media. But it is only one tool and even eauthors need to realize not all of their readers are tapped into the ebuzz.

J.T. Shea, I realize that Lynn Viehl wrote her blog articles last year and that Nathan wrote his analysis of it last year, and I read over Lynn Viehl's financial figures very carefully. My point remains: $24,517.36 net profit for 1-1/2 years of book sales does not mean that a New York Times best-selling author is making anywhere near what someone like J.K. Rowling makes. Sometimes when people hear "New York Times best-selling" author, they think the author's rich and that all their social media time paid off in a really big way. The reality is that perhaps it paid off in a very modest way, if at all.

Does anyone know how The New York Times Best Seller List is actually made? It's not what most people think. It's used more to encourage people to buy books on the list, rather than an accurate account of the actual highest-selling books.

Here's a rather illuminating explanation of how it really works by author Jamie Ford, author of HOTEL ON THE CORNER OF BITTER AND SWEET: here.

Dan Poytner writes in this article: "Bestseller lists are compiled by several periodicals, and they use different methods. In addition, there are national, regional and specialty lists. National lists. The New York Times editors select 36 titles they feel might be best-selling titles for the week and poll some 3,000 bookstores across the U.S. The stores are asked to fill in the number of books sold next to each title and to write in fast-moving books not on the list. Of course, if a book is not on the list, it is not likely to make the top ten that week. But it may be added to the list by the editors the following week."

Typo: I meant "Dan Poynter," not "Dan Poytner".

Social media is like cheese: too little, and you don't know what you're missing; too much and you pig out on bloat.

I think a lot of people are figuring out what a time suck casual social networking can be. It's fine for teens exchanging photos of their navels, but for writers (and anyone else using social media as a gateway for stuff), things have to be a little more sophisticated.

Congratulations on another milestone in your journey Nathan!

I saw a book trailer & loadsa publicity for a book I thought I'd probably like - but it didn't really tell me what the book's about or let me read a few pages - so I won't buy it until that happens.
In general, the internet takes up too much of my writing & family time, but on the other hand, sites like this are valuable & interesting.
I experimented with a blog, but I don't see the point unless I have a book coming out. Twitter: takes so long just to read other tweets I don't usually bother to tweet myself!

Social networking seems to work for YA books, but not as well for adult titles from what I've seen.

I believe it works well. It's a cheap and easy method for getting news international in the comfort of your own seat. Look at Joe Konrath.

http://damselinadirtydress.blogspot.com

I don't think social media automatically helps, but good, sincere, social networking ie: actually interacting and connecting with people can make a big difference.

Social networking helped my book sales. Some of the folks who only know me through my blog have also posted online reviews, or promoted the trailer etc, for which I'm extremely grateful.

Sadly, all too many people seem to think they're networking when they're actually just broadcasting. If there's no personal connection, I imagine that's about as helpful as spam mail.

I've bought several books recently just because of the author's social media skillz...

PARANORMALCY (love Kiersten's blog)

SISTERS RED (Jackson can sing and dance!)

SIREN (again, love Trisha's blog)

So... blogs might not sell TONS of books, but they at least sell a few.

Thinking about it, there's actually a different way of using Social Networking. Being a nerd I ran the figures and got this.

If we take the microcosm of this post as the internet, then the comments section represents internet 'noise', sorry 'hype', created by any particular topic.

(Rough estimate) 90% of people on the comments board posted in positively, which isn't that much of a surprise considering people who extensively use and enjoy social media are used to typing out their thoughts in soudbite bursts almost reflexively. However, of those POLLED half said it had little relevance on their book life. So, lets run some numbers!!!!

666 have been POLLED. That gives us a fedback of 253 Positive results. Those 253 people have accounted for 115 Comments, which represents, a nice neat 50%(-ish) return in 'hype' for what people like. However, 60% are unaffected by internet 'noise' and contribute almost nothing to it. This gives as a roundabout figure of 20% (Ok, it's 17.26% but who's counting) doing all the work, generating interest for around 40%, of which they are part of.

At first this seems like a slice of the market that is too huge to ignore. However, there is another way of looking at it.

If we discount Word of Mouth and focus purely on Internet presence, Social Media 'hype' looks like this: Of every 5 people who COULD buy your book, 1 will buy the book and comment, generating the 'hype' that convinces another person to purchase. 3 people are unaffected. In otherwords, 40% market influence.

Now, reintroduce Word of Mouth.

If you were to concentrate SOLELY to the offline market, you could rely on the those 3 people to 'Word of Mouth' it to the 1 person who posts online through social media. They will then generate the internet 'noise', reaching the last person in our chain of 5. Et Voila: 100% market influence.

So for every comment we make, we are basically influencing 2 people - one will tell two other people, and one will stay quiet.

To the two people reading this Comment......HEELLLLOOOOOO!!!!!!

I heard you yelling and decided to take a break from my self-imposed exile to respond.

Social media is in the perfunctory stages of development. While many still cling to it like fairy dust, the truth is that social media will have to ‘jump the shark’ soon in order to save itself. The problem with self promotion is that is goes stale…real quick. People don’t care what you’re selling even if it’s good. Self promoters who praise social media as their vehicle to move books either; a) haven’t reached their own 100th episode or; b) don’t know they are annoying people. The modernity of social media hasn’t changed the traditional salesman. They are as obnoxious as they always were, and like the telemarketer, the Avon lady, and the door knocking religious zealot our decision to log off is the technological equivalent of screening the call or slamming the door.

Ginny, I love you.

I clicked yes, but I have to quantify that response. (Yes, it's necessary. The OCD said so.) ;)

Social media helps me find books. The Internet is the ultimate word-of-mouth advertising. I hear about an author or a book online and I'll check Amazon or B&N or the author's website for an excerpt. If it catches my attention, I buy it. If I'm not sure, I'll borrow it from the library.

There are a couple of bloggers who will recommend a book, and I'll check it out. The key is I have to have an excerpt of the book. Like an agent, I need to see pages to see if it's worth my time and money.

I don't buy based on a summary or a blurb, though they'll get me down off the fence.

Yes, but I would be Twitter dead last in terms of effectiveness. It's like millions of people shouting into the wind.

From my own personal experience, I don't read books that I've heard about on the internet... and I don't read books that my friends have read, for that matter. Finding books on the internet takes too much time and isn't a valid way to see if the book is any good, and my friends have a different taste in books than I do.

I'm most likely to read books that other authors I respect recommend, ones that have won awards, and ones that are featured in bookstores. If I get the opportunity to listen to an author speak, I always go and I read the work before hand. I admit, I'm also more likely to read a book if I saw the movie and liked it. Those things draw me in much faster than anything on the internet.

Writers who only use social media to promote their books is a turn-off. Only using it as a sales tool feels kind of like when the phone rings at night during dinnertime--you know when you pick up the phone some guy is going to try to sell you carpet cleaning or insurance.

Web activities with content sell books, which is why you can create a nonfiction bestseller online using a content rich blog (like this one.)

But the "I'm so thrilled about the release of my upcoming novel" posts do nothing but bore everyone but the authors' family and friends. And that is what 99% of novelists do on social media.

My novel is coming out Sept 28, but what will sell it in the quantities needed to keep my publisher excited about me will be the fact that it will be, albeit briefly, on Walmart shelves where readers too busy to read boring and repetitive review sites will pick it up and scan through it.

I just don't think there's enough hard evidence to prove it's worth too much time and effort. Sure, you can sell books. But when you break down your cost versus the number of sales, is it worth it? Really? Because it's not sales an author needs--it's SALES. There's no actual proof the sales are that great.

If it was a magic solution, well, it would magically make every book a bestseller. It doesn't. Can it help? Sure. But to what degree? Probably very little, so make your efforts match the outcome.

The cost of social time-sucking, however, is very great, and few are really discussing that. What's your time worth? Could it be better applied to something else? And it can be detrimental to your reputation. How many people have crossed off an author, agent, etc. because of something online? I have. Quite a few, actually.

On a personal note, there's something to be said for turning off and getting back into life. About finding balance. I think this backlash is reassuring. Go BE with your family and friends and your work and STOP tweeting about it constantly instead of living it. Focus on them, give yourself back to them. The rewards might be greater than any sales.

I see the power of social media for selling books to be mainly indirect. Blatant self promoting tweets probably won't get you far, but it can help you build your platform, which will help you land a publishing deal to begin with. It will also help spread word of mouth faster among readers who enjoy your book and recommend it to others. Some people may be easing up on their use of social media, but it's not going to fade out and will continue to lend itself to faster-than-ever networking and buzz.

I think writers follow other writers. Generally, unless you're a bestselling author, you probably don't have that big a nonwriter following.

I've bought every book released recently by a blogger I follow.

But like I said, I don't think it helps with selling to nonwriters.

How many comments are you getting now on average vs. a year ago, Nathan?

Thanks for your post, Nathan.
I wanted to add that the one-week ban of social media on the Harrisburg University campus is part of an experiment to have students reflect on social media's importance in their lives. Yeah, I know – not what I expected either!

Just making sure your readers didn't assume (as I would have) that the profs were just fed up already. ;) Which they probably are anyway...

Thanks, GhostFolk.

It makes us [writers] buy each other's books. It has next to nothing to do with whether or not readers buy our books.

Social media helps, but it will not make a book more than it is. For me blogging has been a great way to learn about the business and meet fellow writers. With that in mind, I try not to let it take over my life. When it starts creeping in too much, I cut back. Plus, for me at this point, writing is more important than reading and commenting on 100+ blogs. This summer I completely stepped away from it.

YES. The social media can help sell your books based on positive feedbacks.But who are actually reading books nowadays? Probably FEW of us. All I know it is best or rather better to READ BLOGS or NOVELS posted on blogs.The problem is how you can make money from blogs. Talking about REAL MONEY.

You mean there still is a world outside the internet? I knew I shouldn't have super-glued my fingers to the keyboard...

Anonymous 9:38 pm, after tax personal income is still not 'net profit'. Whatever the intent, the impression of both Viehl's 2009 post, and your 2:17 pm comment, was that Penguin ripped Viehl off. I broadly agree with your later critiques of both the NYT and social media.

Interesting, Anonymous 9:58 pm. So the NYT best-seller list is not based directly on sales at all!?

BTW, today is the 120th anniversary of the birth of a British woman whose eighty books sold twice as many copies as Stephen King and J. K. Rowling put together. She died long before 'social media'.

It helps to a degree.

Perhaps location plays a key role(as in which part of the world you live in), access to other forms of marketing/learning/sharing/enjoyingliterature, and availability of information/books.

It sounds like a lot of people in the comments have a really strange view of what social media is about. Is Twitter a lot of updates about what someone ate for lunch? Of course it is; it's called Twitter, not Deeply Involved Discourse. It, and all the other forms of social media, are just other ways for people to talk. And just as if you were to walk into a crowded room with lots of different conversations going on, some are going to be mundane, some will be interesting, some will be arguments, all sorts. And just as word-of-mouth will always be what really sells a book, social media is just another way to facilitate that word-of-mouth.

I do know this: I have helped people find and buy new books on Twitter, on Facebook, on Goodreads, in blog comments, on the subway, in the street, on a park bench, by using Foursquare...all of it. How can you hate something that gives you such an opportunity to talk to readers?

Are some authors, companies, or people being rude when they talk about their books using social media? Sure, but no more rude than if you wouldn't shut up about your book in real life. The good authors and bookish people on Twitter or other social media balance out their messages and provide something worthwhile.

Social networking has certainly sold books for me, and helped me not to be so reclusive, to learn to be a little more social (both online and off)

However, it can be a big sucker of time and energy. Lawd. There are days when I want to throw my laptop into the creek and go laughing barefoot into the forest. . . . la la la tee dah!

J. T. Shea, you're completely and totally wrong if you think I was saying that Penguin ripped off Lynn Viehl. I was NOT saying that, and I don't think that AT ALL! Here's what I'm saying: It might NOT be worth putting in long hours of social media time, in addition to putting in long hours of writing, in order to earn less than $30,000 of disposable income for 1-1/2 years. MY MAIN POINT: People tend to say, "Oh, social media time is well worth it because you can get on the New York Times Best Seller List, just like J. K. Rowling!" ... BUT you never hear anyone say, "Oh, social media time is well worth it because you could make $30,000 in disposable income for 1-1/2 years, unlike J. K. Rowling who doesn't spend any time on social media!" Most writers earn only as much as Lynn Viehl did, or even less than that, even after making it onto the New York Times Best Seller List. OK, that's as clearly as I can possibly make my point.

If you post or tweet or whatever the kids are calling it and expect people to magically find you, I think you are setting yourself up for disappointment.

I think it can be very helpful, though, if you take a directed and thoughtful approach to it.

It is easy enough to find a website for people that are passionate about the thing your book is about. They will be much more receptive to hearing about your book (and reading it) than if you sent out a generic plea for readers on a random social networking site.

I run the Digital Spotlight Fiction Review. I'm part of a group who are reviewing ebooks to sift the wheat from the tares in the vast mountain of self-published material available on the net, particularly Smashwords and Amazon.

The first batch of reviews are now up. 3 ebooks reviewed - 1 Good, 1 BAD, 1 a Must-Read.

Please read the reviews in order as I posted the 3 at once for a reason:
http://digitalspotlightfictionreview.blogspot.com/2010/09/good-bad-must-read.html

It's all getting a bit too....OTT.

I tried to leave a comment on another agents blog. I need a google account. To get my google account, they want my phone number.

They can sod off. (yes I did send off to say I didn't want to give my phone number. But heck, it's a lot of work just to post a little comment)

Social media can help sales, especially for smaller presses etc, because how will people buy it if they don't know it exists? But I think people are in overload and/or fed up with intrusion. I know I am.

funny that, as a writer with my debut YA book coming out in the spring, and my option revisions due, I just blogged on this topic yesterday, here:

http://ghpolisner.blogspot.com/2010/09/how-to-really-be-alone.html

also, there's a link to an AWESOME short (mini?) film by a woman named Andrea Dorfman there. I don't know her. But I wish I did.

I voted that I am not "here."

sorry, that should have said blogged on a "related" topic yesterday... it was the whole social networking thing that led me there... :)

I've picked up some books because I find the authors interesting in various social media. I've also decided I will never buy some books because the author is an arrogant ass in public. It goes both ways.

Anonymous 1:45 pm, my last comment carefully distinguished between intent and impression. I already agreed with you regarding (online) social networking, but your comments seems more a critique of writing as a career choice than of social networking. There I would agree only in part.

But social networking IS working for you. Next time I'm in a bookstore, I'll keep an eye open for any books by 'Anonymous 1:45 pm'. You could really make a name for yourself!

From what I've learning from friends in advertising, social media does very little in the end. All those fb updates and the like - bupkis. It's just more noise mucking up the signal.

Clearly it doesn't hurt, but I'm getting completely unimpressed by all this internet chatter.

I was thinking of this the other day. There are so many aspiring authors on Facebook or Twitter that I'm getting fatigue reading their status or tweets.

I know the importance of marketing yourself; especially if a person self-published their books,but it has to be a limit. I believe if they tweet too much or post endless excerpts of their book on Facebook, I feel they'll lose their fans before their get book hits mainstream. Of course, it's my opinion.

I use Twitter to network with other writers and Facebook to communicate with friends and family. Every now and then, I will do a shameless plug of my endeavors, but I don't want to overkill it.

It sounds like a lot of people are saying either "There are too many people out there to filter the noise" or "I never buy a book based on someone's tweets."

Both of these are true, I think, but are beside the point. Social media is not why you buy a book. It's how you first hear about a book.

And if you hear about a book enough times, from enough different sources, you'll eventually check it out yourself. So all the regular book filtering factors are still in play.

I should count all the books I've bought because I met the author on Twitter, or to be more exact, the author met me.
Signed, <a href="https://twitter.com/theFirstCarol>@TheFirstCarol</a>

About a third of the books I read are purchased as a direct result of Internet chat and/or advertising. That's significant.

Interestingly though, book trailers have turned me off to books I thought I would buy. Once I saw the trailer, I thought, WTF? And then it was over. Not buying that.

However, I bought Maggie Stiefvater's Shiver because she had the first chapter posted online. Loved it. Bought it. The same is true of Julie Kagawa's Iron King.

When an agent finally awakens to my writing genius and I get published, I'm going to make sure any publishing contracts I sign include the right to publish the first chapter online. That's what makes ME want to buy a book, so why the hell not?

I always check the acknowledgements sections of books. It's the fastest and easiest way to decide which agents to submit to, and which to not.

They always strike me as a polite thing to do, generous in success.I don't often read them though.

I have an inquiring mind. I want to know all the details.

I always read them, but usually not first. they give me insight to the authors and their work, a sense of where the stories come from when people are thanked for their help, and I like them wherever they are. I will look to see whether they only thank men, or only thank people in the business, who their agent is, whether they thank people who helped them with research. I look for something funny, like Anne McCaffrey bragging she could knit a sweater in a day and that her hair was white. When I completed my MFA I included acknowledgments in my thesis—thanking first a writing partner who'd supported my work, The Flight of the Mind and others, and the director, my advisors, and peers in the program.

I think that's like asking the choir if they like God. As writers I think we tend to gravitate towards the acknowledgments section. I for one like to see if they make mention of their agents and how they chose to thank their supporters and family. I agree with the other commenters I appreciate it more in the back of the book. If I were not a writer, I'm not sure I'd be as interested the acknowledgments, the author bio would suffice enough in that case.

*in fact when I bought 'The Secret Year' the first thing I did was turn to the acknowledgments section!*

I like the acknowledgments sections. It provides so much information for the reader, and for the writer. When I find a book I really love, hopefully the author has thanked their agent, and then I have a frame of reference.

Plus, I would like to think that someday I will get the chance to publicly name all the people that helped me along the way.

I love to read the acknowledgments. Though the writer does the writing, the people around you provide the support. Heck, they deserve a Super Bowl trophy.

I think it's always nice to say thank you...but I agree- at the end for fiction please (for non-fiction acknowledgements seem to make more sense to me at the beginning, however) and if they cue the orchestra while you're thanking your Pekinese then you know you've gone on too long.

LOVE THEM! But I like to learn about the author. And I think it is sweet.

I second the notion that the acknowledgments page is not for the readers, it's for the author and everyone around the author who contributed. I feel bad for folks who believe that books are the product of a writer sitting in a room alone--maybe writing is that way for them, but I wouldn't trade my experience for the world. Tons of people help me write, whether it's just by being my cheerleaders or actually getting their hands dirty reading or critiquing. I can't imagine sitting along in a room with no outside input and producing a beautiful piece of art.

But that aside, I do believe the acknowledgments are valuable tools for aspiring writers. They're sometimes funny, inspirational, and usually quite helpful. Authors will thank their agents and editors, which helps new writers start to recognize these names and think about the people they might want representing their own work.

I've always enjoyed the acknowledgments. It make the author seem more real, more human to me. And if they can attain success, being a regular 'ol schmoe like me, that means I've got a shot, too.

Waste of a tree!

I like them, for the most part. I like being able to find out who agented and edited a book, and I also like that there is an avenue for authors to publicly acknowledge all the help they get (because we all know that whole "solitary soul click-clacking away and single-handedly turning out a masterpiece" cliche is a lie.

I stop reading when they foray into "and thanks to my favorite band, MuscleJuice, whose music inspired me, and to CreamyCrunch, for the ice cream that carried me through my deadlines..." etc. territory, though. Friends, family, professionals, real people who knew they were helping you, fine; random things/people/places you like? I don't care.

Sorry, that should have been, "for making the ice cream that carried me through my deadlines..."

You get the idea.

I like them and always read them (but then again, I've just started working in publishing, so I'm interested to see who is the author's agent/editor etc)

They're a letdown when they're just a list of names, but I don't complain about the copyright page, which doesn't get in my way even though it's boring, too.

What's unfortunate is when an author thanks his wife, then gets divorced.

Showing gratitude is not a question but a must.

I'm reminded of a reader-letter I once read that had been sent to 'The Vancouver Sun' newspaper.

A young lady named Angela Yeanor had been writing a somewhat trashy 'Sex And The City' type article for The Sun, and this very stuffy reader had sent in a letter of complaint.

"Every Saturday morning," he began, "I make myself a cup of coffee... I make some toast, and I take my copy of The Saturday Review and I go and sit in the alcove off my kitchen... I work hard all week long, and look forward to this ritual. Angela Yeanor's column has no business existing side by side with all the other columns in your magnificent Saturday Review section of the paper. She is a disgrace to the newspaper."

Okay, so three words then.

Don't... read... it.

And quite frankly, I would say the same about quotations.

If a novelist decides, for whatever reason, to commence a novel with a quotation, and you, as the reader, for whatever reason, think that this is a sloppy or a lazy thing to do, then, again, three words...

It's so simple not to read something. All you have to do is exercise a few eyeball muscles. Honestly, the individual who runs this blog would do well to spend a little more time exercising his eyeball muscles and a little less time hitting that big red delete button which he has clearly had installed on his desk.

I love the acknowledgments section.

For me, I get valuable insights to who is friends with who, who is whose agent etc.

I also find it interesting what grants authors had, etc.

when i'm watching old movies, and the opening credits take lass than two minutes and there's no end credits telling me who the caterers and teamsters were, i am reminded how we have become somewhat obsessed with this idea that everyone deserves mention.

while it's a boon for writers to glean editors and agents names, or maybe catch a friend's name among the list, i don't find that acknowledgments help me appreciate the book any more than the dedications or the LOC info. given that authors have more opportunities to thank people publicly (blogs, websites, etc) i'm not inclined to feel they need to be in the book anymore.

but clearly, according to the poll, i am way outnumbered in this regard.

In fiction that bases its characters on real people as the personae model it seems fair and honorable to give the background contributors a nod. Other than that just the spouse and current psychiatrist should be the limit.
I voted Enhh.

Genuine gratitude is always good no matter what. Thanking the people who helped you should be a human standard.

The acknowledgments page isn't for the reader so it shouldn't matter where it is placed -- the page is for the writer, it's the writer's forum, and it belongs in every book.

Sometimes acknowledgments are fun to read, especially for a novel when the author is thanking different experts who contributed. It makes me feel like they really did their research.

I love reading them. I love hearing about all the people that came together to make a book happen.

I like reading Acknowledgments as they provide an insight into the writer and how they relate to those who assisted them on their writing and publishing.

I happen to like acknowledgments sections, but I think you have a biased audience here. I prefer ones that have some humour or storytelling to them. Lists of names don't really appeal, but then let's face it, they're not really there for my benefit, they're there for the people that contributed.

I agree with Anonymous at 7:35pm. If you don't like them, don't read them. I don't like quotations, so I always skip them.

I think no writer is an island - we all have people who in some way or another help us when we're writing and getting a book out. Acknowledgements strike me as gratitude expressed - to me it means the writer knows that the relationship structure in her/his life is important too.
I know we shouldn't expect thanks for everything we do, but if you're the person who helped, you do enjoy feeling a little validated when someone out and out says thanks for your help.

Personally, I like the ones that have a little explanation with them (like someone mentioned as: to so-so who kept my sanity intact with mallomars throughout the journey that was writing this book).
It's a nice little personal touch. In a time when we expect our writers to be people as well as writers, this does contribute.

I think acknowledgments are fun. In middle grade and YA novels, I use them to play a kind of six degrees of seperation..."Oh, I know that name. She's in the same critique group with the friend of a writer I know." In books for grown ups, I'm far less likely to know anyone so they're less fun.

I agree with others, cheekychook and Anima for instance, that it's just right to acknowledge the people who helped you. And, as Zee Monodee said, no writer is an island. Even if you do most of the working and figuring out on your own, most writers do have an agent and an editor at the very least. If you've been really reclusive, you might want to even thank your friends for being willing to talk to you six months after you shut them all out (or, you know, my friends after I've shut them out since, yeah, that's me). Basically, I'm a firm believer in giving honor where honor is due. I have every intention of thanking some of the e-groups that helped bolster my writing confidence and critiqued my early work because I really wouldn't be where I am, even now, without them.

I like reading Acknowledgements, and it doesn't really matter to me if they're in the back or front. I think it's a great idea to thank everybody who helped the writer succeed and help out with making the book happen.

~TRA

http://xtheredangelx.blogspot.com

When I love a book, I read EVERYTHING in it, so I like the acknowledgments. They're a little bit like a high school graduation speech or an Oscar award winner speech. I guess the best surprise bits of a book I ever read were in Eggers' A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius, even the copyright information page.

I think acknowledgement sections are more for the people who get thanked than they are for the people who thank them or read them. Personally, I feel like there are so many people who helped me on my journey, what better way than to have that "acknowledged" in every copy of a book I see. Those thank you's will live on forever, for generations. They work for me.

I like them and can't wait to have the opportunity to do some. It's a feel good thing. =)

I like them! Think about how hard it is to get a story to that stage, how many hurdles one had to jump to get there. If it's self-indulgent, damn it, it's well-deserved. Besides, I like knowing who his/her agent is.

And I can't imagine not thanking the people at home that put up with me locking myself away on a regular basis to write something that may or may not go anywhere some day.

I voted "like" but I think it's an interesting topic for another reason.

In the past, when books were released in print, it took months, or years, to get them released, from conception to the day they hit the bookstore. Our only real contact with the author, for person info, was the acknowledgment page and bio page.

But now, what I've been seeing with author friends, is that there's so much online info about them already, from blog posts to their author web sites to the social networks, the acknowledgment page doesn't seem as significant as it did before we had all this info at our fingertips.

I know a few writers who are still doing it, and I love reading these pages, but it might be one of those things that starts to disappear as e-books grow in the mainstream. Particularly in genre fiction. With some authors putting out a new release every six weeks its more efficient to just list a web site for personal info than to write an acknowledgment page.

I think it's nice to acknowledge in print the people who helped you get that very book out. If an author wants to thank people privately, it's certainly their prerogative. The reader has the ultimate choice to read or skip the acknowledgments.
Personally, I'm way more offended by typos and printing errors.

Definitely like. No one gets to be published without having the help of others. It's nice to see authors acknowledge those who've helped make their dream a reality. I always read acknowledgments and dedications in any book.

Love them, and have ever since I was a kid. Maybe because I knew I wanted to be a writer even then, and I felt like it brought me closer to the person behind the words?

As a reader I didn't pay too much attention to them. As a writer they are VERY important. People who are involved on your journey to publication like to receive acknowledgment. I have heard many people who were slighted on the acknowledgments. They feel jilted. If they are a part of your work you should give them credit. AND always thank the readers who read your stories on every publication. They keep our dream alive.

I like them because they offer some insight into who the author is, but also because they often mention who their agent is, and I always like knowing that!

I ignore them at the beginning of a book - I just want to read. At the end I might look for the agent, or just enjoy finding out a bit more about the writer.

I read the acknowlegements, as it gives me a clue about the author and the people that helped them along the way. I do agree I'd rather see them in the back in lieu of the front.

Agree about Eggers' Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius. By far, that book has the best set of "extra" pages. I believe he acknowledged that Pluto was a planet if I remember correctly.

I quite enjoy reading the acknowledgements as long as they're not pages long. I think the best ones are where the author thanks people who helped them write the book, or who gave them inspiration.

I always enjoy reading them. As an author, I'm interested in seeing who helped them get to that point in their life, their struggles and ups and downs. I also like hearing with whom they did their research.

Each time I revise my book, the acknowledgements section changes until now. It doesn't exist.

One time it read, "To the one who knows" which just about includes everyone from my dead cat to my fifth-grade teacher.

Normally, the acknowledgement section gets only a glancing read-through by me unless I am very impressed by the book, then I may go back and read it again. Maybe they would be best at the end of the book.

I voted "yes" because it is nice to connect on that level with the author at times. Although, sometimes they do get carried away.

Balance in all things includes acknowledging others.

Although I religiously read your blog, I rarely take time to comment. This time, though, I have to weigh in. Of all the pages in a book, the ones I NEVER skip are the acknowledgments. I want to know who played a role in getting the book to print. Did the author work alone, or were there many many people involved? What were their roles? If an acknowledgment is properly written (and I have a definite idea of what "proper" is), it gives me a clue as to who that writer is and how s/he works, and I feel more inclined to follow him/her on to the next book. They matter--and they should ALWAYS come at the end, in my opinion.

Sometimes I read the acknowledgments. If the author keeps them short.
If the acknowledgments take up 2 pages, I don't even look at them.

I've always liked them at the end. They give you great insight and many times the writer takes you through the journey they had as they worked on the book. I've been mentioned in Acknowlegments before and it's pretty cool.

I always love reading the acknowledgments. It gives the reader a little glimpse into what- who- brought them the book they just read, and that's always fun, at the very least, for me to see.

I think with so much work going into some books, it was REALLY necessary for the writer to acknowledge that she does not know everything about every thing, and someone helped her incorporate certain places, subjects, or persons into her story seamlessly.

But in many books, I think it is just another section to pat the shoulders of the whiny people in the writer's life who complain "you haven't thanked ME yet! Remember, I make you sandwiches! And I taught my parakeet to say your NAME!"

Acknowledgments to me should be creative, touching if appropriate and most of all short and sweet. Thanking every single person you ever talked to about your novel before its publication, to me, makes the thanks less important. That being said, if I'm not interested in what or who is being thanked, I skip it. I can always go back if there is someone I want to remember mentioned there.

Whoever started the trend to put them at the end was aa genius. I typically skipped them at the begining or skimmed them. When they're at the end it's almost as though the novel is extended just a peek.

I'll always put mine at the end.

I always read acknowledgments. It's like applauding the people who helped. It's also a thrill to be in them, as happened for me recently.

I love acknowledgments pages. It's really strange, but I actually read them first to get a sense of who the author is as a person. Sometimes that influences the way I read the novel, and sometimes it actually makes me a more patient reader for that person's work.

For my own work, I had to consult with several psychiatrists and medical professionals to get a good understanding of my two main characters. If this work ever gets into print, you better believe I'm going to thank at least the main psychiatrist I spoke with. It wouldn't be proper not to.

I like them. I tend to skim them more, if they're generically, "Thanks to Bob and Kathy and Mom and Dad," but if they're a little more personal I'll absolutely enjoy them start to finish. It's almost part of the story at that point.

I do like some prologues. I only really like them to help set the tone of a novel so that you can know ahead of time if it's going to be scary, suspense, or whatever.

I write YA and, without even cracking open books, can think of at least 2 NYT YA bestsellers with prologues.

Personally, as a writer, I feel like they're a bit of a cop out. When I've written one, it's alway been because the begining of my story felt slow, so I needed to give it a boost. In the end, I've always pulled the prologue and rewriten the begining of the book.

Depends on the prologue, quality and quantity. If it is a length of a chapter, call it Chapter 1. I am in agreement with some of the comments already made.

What doesn't work for me:

-a summary of what happens later
-used as a way to dump info that can be integrated throughout the novel
-one that ends as a dream sequence (sorry!)

I can't quite put a finger on what works. I usually know when I read it. Prologues I read. Introductions, especially from other authors about the book, I don't because most give away the plot. These are usually seen in literary works and especially in the classics.

All I can say is that no-one has whined about mine yet. As it is a short story (30K) and published as part of an anthology earlier this month, there is still plenty of time left though.

The reason I used it was because I wanted to drag the readers a third of the way into the story so that my horribly unsympathetic main character (which for some reason, and I think in no short measure thanks to the prologue, people like!) is given context, so his amazingly self centred ramblings don't put the reader off too much as they can see what a self-delusional hypocrite he is. It also helps that he starts off this complete sod (literally and figuratively) and through massive amount of self revelation, and a minor war, turns into a half decent human. Sort of.

As a newbie, it was rather nice that the publisher chose my prologue as opposed to excerpts of the other three previously published authors, two of whom are "names" in the genre, as the titillation bit of the anthology.

PS. Am being purposely obtuse with regards to description as I am sure there will be some YA ppl following this blog.

Dan Holloway...If you're book works better with one, use it; if not, don't.

Preach on, brother.

It depends on the prologue. By that I mean, does it serve its purpose as a prologue or is it simply chapter one in disguise. A brief prologue that sets the atmosphere, raises a question, or gives the reader a little something to chew on throughout the story, therefore getting them to turn the page; absolutely.

If it does none of that, or if the same could be shown in the first chapter, then there's no need for it.

That's my opinion as a reader, and mostly as a writer. I usually start with one, but by the final draft I've changed it and it has become chapter 1.

Wow, I'm in the majority for a change. I've read some books where they're needed, work well and are written well.

Others, not so much.

I don't like prologues that never tie back in strongly enough. Great example: George R.R. Martin's A Game of Thrones contains a first chapter/prologue that quickly introduces us to some characters, sets them up, and kills them off. They've tied back in here or there in the massive series, but far past the point where I cared.

I dislike prologues when they equate to loose threads. They can work well when they setup a crucial moment later, but you've got to handle them with enough care to make sure the reader is fully invested (something Martin did extremely well in his).

I would also pose another question: how many times do you clearly see through a prologue masquerading as Chapter One? For me, it's always when I reach the end and ask myself: "But what happened to the dog?"

It ALWAYS depends!

Stories can be told in many ways. To have an opinion as which way is best is superfluous.
I initially began my novel with a prologue which admittedly sucked. It ended up as a list of facts adorned with sparkle words (see Josin's comments at 12:39). After an appropriate scolding by my betas I have re-written... but just because my prologue sucked doesn't mean they all do.
If you missed it, scroll up to Melissa Sarno's comment as well (12:49) I like the idea of setting tone rather than plot stakes at the beginning of a book.

Mostly no.

It seems most prologues fall into two categories:
1.Info dump
2.Here's something exciting because my first chapter is really boring and I hope my prologue will keep your interest.

I just used a prologue in my most recent YA novel, but I ended up taking it out because it seemed like a cheap trick. I thought my chapter 1 wasn't exciting enough to catch an agent's eye, so I tried to create some excitement with a prologue. After removing the prologue, I was forced to take another look at chapter 1. A concise, relevant prologue can be wonderful, though. Particularly, I am thinking about The Brief Wondrous Life of Oscar Wao.

An example of a brilliant prologue can be found in Rohinton Mistry's A Fine Balance. There, the prologue not only sets up wonderfully the story and the characters, it also acts as an anchor for the rest of the narrative, with Mistry several times referring back to the prologue to re-orient the reader.

If the prologue introduces something significant to the story that the reader should know before diving into the main story, I think a prologue is the right place to do. However, I feel that prologue should be brief. Give me the quick info I need and let me get to the meat of the book.

Besides, I'm slightly bias since my very first novel starts with a one page prologue. :)

It depends on how good the prologue is.

For that matter, Chapter 1 depends on how good Chapter 1 is. Same goes for every chapter after that.

I don't get people who don't read prologues. The author wrote it for a reason, and if the prologue is part of the story, and if you respect the author enough to read the story, read the prologue.

There are also people who say prologues are lazy writing, but I disagree. Typos are lazy writing (or lazy editing). So are plot holes and dangling participles. Or not writing in general, that's totally lazy. If you write a prologue and stop there, than may that could be considered lazy. But writing a great book and then crafting an interesting prologue to set it up is not lazy. I loves me a good prologue, it makes me want to turn the rest of the pages.

But I'm the kind of guy who reads the entire cereal box, so I have my issues and maybe this is just one of them.

Most of them seem rather unimportant or unconnected to the story, and in those cases, they can usually be left out. But there are some that seem vital to setting up the story, especially if they happen a long time before it but are still necessary to the main plot. So it really does depend.

My prologue is two pages, was included in the sample pages with the query, and got me a full request by my dream agent.

So yes, I like them.

Maybe genius makes a good point: A lot of the time, you could just rename the prologue "Chapter One," and then the issue is moot.

The real point is, you don't want to info-dump at the beginning of your book. Whether you call it a prologue or chapter one, if it's info-dumping, get rid of it.

You know what would be fun? A prologue that never ended. That would be funny. The person could keep trying to end the prologue, but then start it up again, because they just weren't ready for the story yet.

Maybe I'll write that. I don't know if you could sustain it through a novel, but a novella could be very funny.

So, I remember your original post on this, Nathan, and I thought at the time you had a very good point about prologues needing to engage the author twice, and prologues make the author work hard, and may not be worth it. A prologue does give the author a chance to put the book down twice.

I know personally, I sort of sigh when I see a prologue.

So, I guess my feeling is a prologue needs to be done really well, and for a very good reason, otherwise, best not to use them.

Choice 4: It depends on how necessary and helpful the prologue is.

I don't understand why people say the prologues is not where the story starts. It *is* where the story starts. It may not be where *these* particular characters start, but prologues provide hints and background so as you read along, you can start piecing the history together. I like prologues, I think they create atmosphere.

The venomous attacks on prologues have to do with two ideas:
1. The reader does not want to waste time. Excuse me? You call yourself a reader? No, you are a consumer of books. Different. If you like rushing around like that, take up drag racing.
2. Prologues are the output of a lazy writer. Not necessarily. Perhaps they are the output of an organized writer.

Myself, I'd a thousand times rather read a prologue than plow through FLASHBACKS!!! Okay, here's where I hiss and spit.

If there's backstory or worldbuilding I, the reader, need to know about, then I want you, the writer, or organize it and make it interesting so I don't think you're a bore, and spit it out. I feel bored and irritated when I get to a phrase like, "The last time she had worn this dress, things had been very different." Oh, Lordie, here comes the stinking flashback.

This is the first post of yours that I've seen a poll attached to it...I think you should use polls more often! It provides a lot of reader input and is a nice addition to a blog post.

I also think that it really depends on the prologue itself. Some are really important in setting the stage for the novel, while others just throw out a bucket of suspense but not a lot of valuable information about the characters. So yeah...it really depends.

~TRA

http://xtheredangelx.blogspot.com

If the prologue is a prologue because it's a short (<4 pages) bit of story that doesn't share the same setting as the "real" beginning of the book, then it belongs. If done right, the prologue can set up a hook that the protagonist doesn't know about yet.

On the other hand, if the prologue is there because the author can't be bothered to drop backstory slowly as he/she goes along, then the prologue needs to be fed into the meat grinder and sprinkled liberally throughout the first few chapters instead.

As a reader, I have to say I like prologues when they don't reveal what happens in the future--meaning they're temporarily in line with the rest of the story. Ex: an event that took place in the past, that will/does affect the protagonist in the main part of the story. The key is to make sure whatever's brought up in the prologue is referred to again (discover what the meaning behind that passage was) later in the "actual" story.
The prologue needs to be as exciting as the rest of the story and I feel should can be from a POV other than the protagonist's (whereas I feel chapter 1 should be from the protagonist's POV).
Otherwise, I feel most prologues are detractors or false promises.

I think the writer's style has more to do with a good prologue than anything else.

And generally, if it's in the book, I read it.

I like short prologues which give a back ground, or reason for what is about to happen. I would rather have it there to whet my appetite that have it slowing down the story,as a flashback, later.

I don't like long prologues about someone or something that is only mentioned again at the novel's end so I am left throughout the whole book wondering what on earth those first pages were all about.

If you've written a good prologue, as all of them SHOULD be well written, then it should be included. If it's all meaningless fluff, you should just ditch it anyway.

Personally, I almost always hate prologues. They can too often be confusing, and not enough is explained so they make little sense, almost like they're out of context. Now, if the prologue is a flashback, then it usually works better.

Another prologue that I hate: a scene from the middle of the book.

I never read prologues.

I really enjoy writing prologues. They usually feature a murder victim dying his grisly death. Oh the drama! And then, after I've stopped prologuing (read: procrastinating) I write the rest of the manuscript. After that, if the prologue doesn't fit, I take it out. Simple.
The "poetic," mood-setting prologues I've seen in a lot of YA novels lately--I can do without those.

Refusing to read a prologue on principle seems arrogant.

The writer may choose their method of storytelling; if I love their story and their voice, I'll love every word they've given me, whether it's labeled prologue, footnote or afterward.

This is discouraging. I had no idea people hated prologues so much. I read a short prologue in a book by Michael Connolly that so inspired me with the device's potential that I never forgot it. It would not have been the same book without it. (Sorry, I forget which title it was. The narrator was a female whose SO had been killed in Las Vegas, if this helps.)

I have a prologue in the novel I'm writing. It's a piece of backstory from many years earlier, and by the time the subject comes up in the body of the novel, the reader will already know this crucial piece of information that (I hope) will enhance the suspense of the story. When it comes up again, at the end of the book, the foundation has been laid.

Call it chapter 1? I don't know. All the other chapters have the story in order, with the usual flashbacks here and there. It doesn't seem at all like a chapter 1 to me.

I'm okay with a SHORT prologue. Otherwise, if you want me to read that stuff, call it Chapter 1. Or sprinkle it in throughout the first few chapters. But I'll read a short, relevant prologue.

You would ask this question. I have a prologue, but I really didn't want to do one. However, I'm writing a middle grade fantasy and was getting completely contradictory input on whether to start it in the 'real' world or the fantasy world. Having a VERY SHORT prologue set in the fantasy world allowed me to start chapter one in the real world with the understanding and expectation that the magic was coming. Laziness on my part? Quite possibly. But at least my readers on both sides of the real vs. fantasy controversy seemed to have been satisfied.

I don't mind a short prologue. If it's long, it should be called Chapter 1. Otherwise it feels like I've started the book twice or even a separate book if the prologue seems to have nothing to do with chapter one.

The way I see it, a prologue is a miniature Chapter 1 that hooks the reader, which isn't long enough to form a whole chapter (less than two pages) but still provides a good intro to the story.

For instance, a mysterious stranger arriving on the shores of an exotic land and doing VERY LITTLE ELSE might make a good prologue. Anything beyond that is Chapter 1.

I abhor prologues and even more flashbacks. Both take me right out of a story.

It has to be good. I think it works when catching up on past information that is vital to the story. Also, flashbacks throughout the story do provide and element of mystery. It all depends on how it's done.

I'd say it depends entirely on the book, ie: the type of story, and what exactly the prologue entails.

Sometimes prologues are necessary sometimes they aren't. I don't hold a grudge against them. Stephanie Meyer had a phenomenal prologue for Twilight. However, I think they need to be short, sweet, and to the point. I can't stand long prologues.

Prologues have their place.

They can set the scene and mood, in a way jumping into the action at the start of chapter one can't. Done well, you can weave in foreboding and subtle clues - but dreams* and prophecies, especially in prologues, seem to be little more than obvious crutches and tell you exactly where the story will go.

In fact, I find prophecies are more boring and useless than prologues. I see one of them, the book doesn't get another look. You don't want to know how the story ends before it's begun!



* Which have a chance to make a comeback! I wouldn't mind a fantasy book that wove dreams and visions in well.

Honestly, who cares? I think an author should be free to craft his story in any way they think is best. If that's a prologue - so be it. If that's a one word chapter then that's fine too. As long as it works.

I voted no, but really I read them and grumble.

Seems to be as many opinions on prologues as there are on the great social issues of our time. Regarding whether agents/editors want prologues, wait a month, it'll change. Questions such as this can and do draw some interesting opinions, but the question takes me back to a "truth" I heard long ago, that there are only three rules to know about writing, unfortunately nobody knows what they are. Maybe it comes from Mencken, maybe not. But I think it's a good thing for writers to keep in their thoughts. Write a good story without worrying about the shoulds and shouldn'ts. Oh, and I do read prologues because the writer thought it important enough to include it.
[Nathan: apologies if you have already offered the "3 rules" comment; I'm new to your very helpful and interesting blog.]

I voted "It depends," because there are some prologues that are clearly out of the timeline of the story. Those make me wonder how that event is going to fit in with the main story. The first thing I think of is a Clive Cussler book which shows a historical event like the sinking of a ship or burying of an ancient treasure, then segues into today's events. You know that treasure is going to be in the story, so that's where the fun starts!

But I've also seen ones that leave me wondering why the author needed it.

I find it hard to get into a book (particularly part of a series) if chapter one is mixed exposition and back-tracking. I find a prologue is better in these cases to set the scene, and get a reader ready to *experience* the story.

I LOVE the Sookie Stackhouse series, but that is an example of needing a prologue, to set the atmosphere and get introductions and descriptions out of the way.

I think it depends on the story. Some stories call for a prologue; some (I'll even go so far as to say MOST), don't. The writer needs to know their story well enough to recognize which it is in their case.

I used to begin books at the end or the epilogue (whichever the story concluded with)--yes, you read right, I'd read the end first. And if I liked it, I knew I wouldn't care whether the beginning started with a prologue or Chapter 1.

That admission aside, I've grown up some. More and more I've started reading books from their beginnings. And while there are bad prologues out there, there are crappy endings too.

What's important to remember is one persons 'cup of tea' is another persons 'cup of coffee'.

Most of the time I'm not bothered by a prologue. It helps to set the mood, and can carry details and some information that helps comprehend the plot or setting. Admittedly, I come from a fantasy background, where prologue can do a great deal towards grasping the setting.

One of the problem is that prologues often don't feature the same characters, and it's like starting twice the same book. I can understand how that's hard, but I'm curious... isn't it the same as multiple Point of Views? So if we're to disregard prologues with that argument, shouldn't we be wary of books that demand we follow more than one character, even when they sometimes start it completely different part of the world?

I've always seen the prologue as an integral and essential part of the story that, unfortunately, doesn't fit with the rest of the narrative. An example of this is when you need to convey information about a past event. A prologue, where we see things happen, will always be more interesting than an infodump.

Prologues that raise more questions than they answer are also fun. It's a good way to hook your reader.

Cheers,

Claudie

I checked my personal library and noticed that the greats (Dostoyevsky, Tolstoy, Kafka, Joyce, Mann, and Hesse were a few I checked) did not use prologues. Post modern greats like Murakami and Mitchell also don't use them. I trust the masters on this one.

I don't read prologues so I don't mind if they're included or not.

Most prologues just dump a ton of back story on you, discussing people and events I'm supposed to magically recall in chapter 15. Unfortunately I'll have forgotten most of the essential data by the middle of chapter one.

Far better to mention relevant people and events in chapter 13 or 14.

Prologues usually take action from 3/4 of the way into the book and yank it to the front so it starts out "exciting," THEN we start the actual book and have no idea what is going on until we get 3/4 of the way through the book. I hate that.

Good writing being nonnegotiable,I choose option 4: It depends upon the book.

I don't mind prologues.

In my novel I don't have one but I do have an epilogue and I wasn't sure if that were strange or not.

So long as I enjoy reading the book, I don't care what it has.

Don't like them. Generally don't bother reading them unless I get into the book and it's interesting. Then I might go back and read the prologue. I figure if it's important enough to be in the book, it belongs in the first chapter.

Since I read all the blurbs at the front, the dedication, acknowledgements, and copyright page, why wouldn't I read the Prologue?

I've used prologues a couple of times, both describing something that occurred years before the events of the story. I didn't want the reader to get whiplash jumping from 1540 to 2010 from one chapter to the next.

I don't see what the problem with prologues is. I actually rather like them, but really, I always just start with page one no matter what it's labeled. Chapter One, prologue, introduction, whatever, so long as it's interesting and well-written.

Snobbery is the public face of insecurity.

90% of everything is crap. Just because you've never read a good prologue doesn't mean there's something flawed about prologues.

And vilifying the books that have them doesn't make your book any better.

Talking about actual prologues and not Forward by SoandSo, I say they Rock the Casba! Unlike those lame Epilogues.
Prologues work by perspective. Everyone sees things their individual way. Finding out a whole different is part of the fun.
Epilogues kind of take away the reader's imagined continuation.

I know of some novels that have beautiful prologues that supported the book beautifully. I think the key is to keep it short and make it interesting!

Only if it's brief.

Um, yeah, I just realized I used beautiful twice! Just goes to show I love a good prologue! LoL

I love a good prologue and am pretty indifferent to bad ones. I don't really agree with hating them on principle...that doesn't seem to make sense to me.

Here's what I like about a good prologue: it's not back story that we could read somewhere else. It's another piece of story that you CAN'T get otherwise. It doesn't fit, but it's important. It could not be told by the main character if it were not told separately in the prologue. Those are the ones I like.

For example take China Mieville's Perdido Street Station. China is an amazing author, and he starts out this book with a killer prologue. I'm glad it was there and that someone wasn't like "Prologues suck, take it out." And I hope that when people read the book they don't skip that scene, because man, they'd be missing out.

I remember when I once read a lot that I would flinch if I came to a prologue. It usually seemed a piece of writing devoid of anything interesting. So when I came to doing a prologue, I made sure to make the writing exceptional and the events full of magic sparkle and fantastic elements. As I was writing a novel focusing on fairy people, Magination, this was relatively easy to pull off. (Actually, it took tons of rewrites to get it how I wanted it.) This prologue was written in first tense and directly addressed the reader as if a character in the story. It was a part of the story which didn't involve the MC, but lead to the events of the first chapter. From then on, whenever I wrote a scene that didn't have the MC, I would make that scene similar to the prologue stylistically, although without addressing the reader.

I don't mind prologues at all, but I feel that not EVERY book needs one.

Usually a prologue is kinda boring, but if it's not too long then it's not super detrimental. Usually a prologue is just a way to have two intro chapters which take time to ramp up.Definitely don't put a boring chapter at the end of an earlier book series as the "sneak peak" to the next volume. I almost didn't continue a good series because of a sneak peak prologue.

I voted that it depends on how good the prologue is. I've read some pretty good ones, but I've also read some pretty bad ones... or ones that just don't seem nessisary. An example of a good one would have to be the prologue for "Eregon". I felt that it had just the right mix of action and info to keep the reader going, and it wasn't info that could be explained easily in the story. An example of one that is unnessisary would have to be from some of the Redwall Books: they're good books, granted, but half the time the prologues are just about an elder telling a youngster a story... and then the whole book ends up being the story.

For me, you use a prologue if you have important info that just can't be easily written into the story. In one of my books, I have such information; I tried to cut the prologue and write the info into the body of the manuscript, but it didn't work well at all. I tried to just cut the prologue period, but that didn't work either because it left the reader without some important information. So yes, I have a prologue, hopefully a well-written one. But usually I try to leave prologues alone and start with chapter 1. :)

I went out on a limb and included a prologue in my book. I've gotten great feedback concerning that short-enough prologue, and I love it, so I'm keeping it. The passage is the sort of thing that would be difficult to incorporate into chapter one, so prologue it is, and prologue it shall remain.

I voted against prologues. That said, I have read one or two I liked. But the majority of prologues annoy me.

I think prologues, like everything else, can be great if they're written well. I've read some prologues that seem to have no real connection to story itself (I'd give an example, but I've blocked them out of my mind). They're jarring. Instead of pulling you more into the story they bring you out of it and leave you wonder "what was that all about?" I don't like those.

Other times a prologue sucks you right in, like the first words of story should, and when you get into the book you're glad that you know whatever it was that the prologue told you.

These comments show that some people are so opposed to prologues they won't even bother reading them, and I'd venture a guess that in general the people who read here are far more patient and avid readers than the general public, so a lot of prologues probably do go unread. That in itself can be reason not to go with one, particularly if you have a target audience would be among those more likely to skip it.

Regardless of whether you have a prologue or not your first chapter should still be strong, with a solid hook, and should stand alone. In other words a good prologue is there as a bonus for the people who bothered to read it. It's the literary equivalent of an "amuse-bouche"; you won't starve without it, you'll still enjoy the meal, but it's kinda nice that the chef decided to send it out to you while you're waiting for your real food to arrive.

Or maybe I'm just hungry.

Everyone always says don't do a prologue. Yet here I am reading Dragon Keeper by Robin Hobb and it has a quite long prologue. I think it depends on the situation. Bottom line, though, it has to add to the story and be done right.

Whoops. I don't usually re-post for typos, but I used the wrong words. :)

So, I remember your original post on this, Nathan, and I thought at the time you had a very good points about prologues needing to engage the reader twice, and how prologues make the reader work hard, so they may not be worth it. A prologue does give the reader a chance to put the book down twice.

Personally, I sort of sigh when I see a prologue.

So, I guess my feeling is a prologue needs to be done really well, and for a very good reason, otherwise, best not to use them.

I don't read them. That's awful isn't it. An author takes the time to write it, I buy the book, and skim over his/her words. I always feel guilty about it, but I ALWAYS skip it.

I don't care what you call it.

Make me care about your character(s) on page one.

If I love your character(s) I'll keep reading even if you call it your History to the Introduction of the Preamble and Explanation of All Past and/or Allusion to All Future Events: The Sequelogue

Just write well, drat it. Hang the headings, who cares. Amuse me!

I admit - I've never understood why people freak out over prologues. Whatever it's called, it's probably there for a reason. Granted, there are times when whatever is on page one has NO reason, but that's happened in first chapters too.

I don't care what you call it. It's there, it's done, and as long as it makes me want to read more, then more power to you.

P.S. Lyn I am with you COMPLETELY when it comes to flashbacks. Too many flashbacks make me want to shoot myself.

I like them when they're short, sweet and punchy.

One of my favorite authors, Sherrilyn Kenyon writes prologues but its necessary to give the reader the information.
It's never too long and always fits perfect with the Dark-Hunter books.

Personally, prologues don't bother me and they do serve a purpose. Prologues are not evil entities that must be shunned. *g*

The definition is: Noun. A preliminary discourse; a preface or introductory part of a discourse, poem, or novel.

I believe its how well you've crafted the prologue and kept it to a minimum. You're telling information you can't really put in any of the chapters but the readers need this information to understand certain aspects of the world you've created.

Many people make their prologues too long and don't put the information needed and stop. Sort of like a flashback, short and to the point.

I don't think just putting the information in chapter one works all the time. Prologues have their place, they've gotten a bad rap for being used incorrectly.

Best,
Tambra
teaching at Savvy Authors

I'm late to the party but I usually skim prologue's. Edgar Sawtelle has one so does the popular YA book Hush Hush. Those are the two I can think of off the top of my head that I've read in the last year with prologue's. Why is it such a sin for a newbie author? (not rhetorical ;) And while I'm on the verge of a mild rant, I've also read a ton of books that 'tell' the story this year as well. I'll be nice to those authors and not name names. I don't mind the prologue at all though.

I do not get the hatred of prologues. It's just another part of the book! Its just like... more story for free!! ????? And if everyone supposedly hates prologues, now come every fantasy I pick up (my genre!) has one?!

I love well-written books, prologue or no prologue -- if it's there I'll read it. It all hinges on the quality of the writing for me.

Usually if it's a stand alone novel I never read the prologue. However if it's in a series I can see where a prologue is helpful. I've decided a prologue is useless in any books I've written though. Still have a lot to learn.

I like prologues when they're a little bit of story. I tolerate them if they're telling me something about the world and they're short (an example is the brief intro in the Pern books, which is basically there to tell you the dragons are science fiction).

Unfortunately, most prologues in SFF are the boring infodump variety (and usually a really long infodump). You couldn't call them 'chapter one' and get away with it, because it's obvious they're intended as an infodump rather than a piece of story. I don't like that sort.

It depends on the point of a prologue. I can't stand prologues that are a tease about what comes later in the novel. But if they're information from a different point of view or a different time or anything you're not going to get from the MC in the story told in the novel, I don't always mind them. If they work. It's like with a lot of rules about writing: in general, avoid prologues, but if it works for your novel, use it. Some books with good prologues: Unwind, Sabriel, Fire, The Book Thief (can you tell i write YA?). I liked the comment about the first chapter in Sorcerer's Stone basically being a prologue but shown as chapter one (same goes for Half-blood Prince). And like some have mentioned, they can't be long.

My first and only attempt at a novel has a prologue (and 3 chapters so far).

The prologue has been revised. At first all I did was to introduce my main character, set the theme of the story by having her eccentric (but lovable) uncle arrive at her middle school graduation party with a bouquet of dandelions and some cryptic philosophy. And we see a bit more backstory when her dad gives her a used Fender P-Bass.

After months online reading writing advice, most of which I rejected, I accepted the advice about having an attention-grabbing opening, and decided mine failed. So, I wrote a flash-forward to very near the climax of the story. Our girl, and her band, Dandelion Lawn, are onstage at the Wood City Civic Areana, opening for well-known Midwest rockers Northern Heart.

Afte their first encore, the crowd takes up the chant "Forest Fire, Forest Fire!" The song that got her kicked out of exclusive Forest Academy, and almost sent to jail! The song they haven't played in almost two years.

She decides there and then that the music is no longer enough - she wants people to know their story.

Transition to the rest of prologue as originally written.

-Steve

P.S. I plan to revise the graduation party scene further to establish that she has a brother Chip serving in Iraq. He will die from an IED during early fall of her freshman year.

I just start at the beginning regardless of whether it says Prologue or Chapter 1. It amazes me how many people skip the prologue.

I'll start on page 1 but one time - i did wonder whether to skip the prologue but that particular prologue was interesting.
I think prologue's could be like voiceovers in tv and show that another part of the writing is off but sometimes it works to have the prologue.
I once read one of Alex Rider novels by Anthony Horowitz and for the first time it had a prologue. The prologue was about Alex's dad so didn't quite fit into the main novel and happened 13/4 years before the action of the main story and was vital in showing characterisation and the motivation of a character later in the story so to all those naysayers about prologues - sometime they have their place and shouldn't just be chapter 1. A piece of information that is important enough to go in but does not fit with the main story should be a prologue and not chapter 1 but they need to be done well.

For my taste, if a prologue is absolutely necessary then OK. But only 2-2 1/2 pages of fast-paced action, even if the work is produced in a literary style. A lot of back story and explanation is not for me.

I once read a historical novel where the author put the back story in the first third of the book, after the first 30 pages. After another 30 pages of this I put the book down and never went back to it. I kept wanting to get back to the real story. I suspect the author originally placed this portion as the prologue (the book didn't officially have one) but when her editor pointed out that it was too long to be a prologue and "Do you really need one? where does your story start?" the author thought that putting it into the book as a chapter (a very long one, too) was a clever way of saving it, which was needed to have the story make sense. But this structure seemed to me ill-conceived. Some of that back story could have been woven in as blurbs or into the dialog.

Anyway, my point is if the story needs an info dump as a prologue, a back story, or extraneous info in order to ground the reader for chapter one, then I think the story hasn't been honed well enough and it ought to go back to the drawing board and structured a little better.

Typically, if prologues are included they are necessary in some way. You can't say that they didn't include it in the book. It is in the book. It's in the prologue.

They are events that happen well before the beginning of the story. Sometimes they set up mood. Sometimes they give necessary information (like in a fantasy book you often see them as set up for a prophesy that was written thousands of years before, or used like a flashback). I don't think that they should be longer than a page or two though.

I chose option 3 because when they are well done, they're interesting and important. If they're poorly done, it can be distracting. Either way, the author did include it in the book.

I sometimes (not always) put a "prologue" of something that happens years before the start of the actual book and gives some indsight on a character or foreshadows the rest... sort of a short story before the actual novel. Do you think it could work?

I think it's important to put something as a prologue if it's out of character with the rest of the book, like a flashback, a dream... something like that. I see this a lot in spec fiction.

I would never put the word PROLOGUE above it though. I've heard too many people say they skip them! Eeeek!

Although I prefer to start with chapter one in my own writing, it does essentially depend on how good the prologue is. But in my line of work I see so many irrelevant, misplaced, jarring, and obscure prologues to be wary (and a little irritated) by them all. What I'm seeing more and more in unpublished work is the 'preface,' which I find off-putting in too many ways to list here, (especially when there's a prologue after it, too).

Nathan, would it be possible for there to be a sort of definition discussion of the differences between prologues, prefaces, forwards, introductions etc.

Thanks

C.

I don't generally love prologues, as a reader or a writer, but they have their place. For me, a prologue works when there's information that isn't part of the forward moving story arc that's necessary for the reader to know. I don't like the data-dump type of prologues either, though, with all the backstory; it has to be delicately handled, in my opinion.

I use a prologue in the rough draft of my fantasy novel, and it can go or not in revisions, but I do think it gives a helpful handle on other happenings in the world beside my MC's narrow viewpoint. It's the scene where her father dies, before she's ever born, and she's lied to about it - so I think the prologue helps set that up. But it doesn't belong as chapter one, because it's fifteen years before and not part of the "story" once it takes off, kwim? You can certainly argue the point, though.

I'm using a prologue in a work-in-process to tell the reader something that the main character doesn't know in order to build tension.

I recently read a book that would have benefitted from a prologue. The beginning of the book was really hard to follow. If another reader hadn't told me that it was about a human with an alien inside her, I would have been lost.

That all being said, I voted that it depends on how "good" the prologue is, but I think it's whether or not the prologue is needed.

I have never understood the loathing for prologues. (And those people who say they don't even read them??? Hello! They're not the author's introduction--this is the start of the story!) I totally see their worth in the grand set-up of a book.

But I've found that prologues work best in thriller-type books. The promise of things to come. A thriller does need that Ordinary World set-up, and getting tortured/dismembered/psychologically played with in Ch. 1 makes me, the reader, feel a bit off-kilter. But a prologue with that bad stuff? Or the prologue in the killer's point of view? Maybe cliche, but I loves it!

-Susan

I can tell you one author who would have benefitted greatly from a prologue--Judith McNaught (massive bestseller). She started at a wedding on Ch. 1, then had the girl think about what led up to that wedding for 200 PAGES OF BACKSTORY!

I think she was afraid to use a prologue (because of this inane fear of prologues). And the telling of the book suffered a bit because of it.

After reading most the responses, I have a question for you, Nathan.

Do you think that most agents' fear of prologues come from reading so many bad ones? And has this fear rubbed off on the writing community to the point that many hate them because that's what they're supposed to do, even though (when you truly get down to it) they don't know the difference between a prologue, a preface, and an introduction??

I tell my writing students to avoid semicolons if possible until they know how to use them properly--a misused semicolon is the surest way to screw up the credibility of a paper.

Is the prologue the agent's semicolon?

-S.

I like prologues as long as they're crisp and short. A good one is a great teaser for the story to come.

I find it odd to apply a hard and fast rule to anything in writing. 'Prologues are bad/unnecessary', 'The story should always begin in Chapter 1'...it all depends. We read things about Big Publishing looking for a new, original voice...that being said, that new original voice may need a prologue for their blockbuster bestseller, or maybe they don't. A number of my favorite books have prologues, while others favorites start a chapter 1. As I've seen most agents post in their blogs, isn't good writing the key?

I don't like prologues in any shape or form, period. Even -- especially!! -- when they're well-written, all prologues are standalone things, followed by a huge jump in time, space, POV, etc. You've just tuned in to follow a good story when you're torn away from it and relocated to a totally different setting (often in a very different style and even genre), and you have to start tuning in all over again! No, thank you very much :-) Absolutely no prologues for me.

I have never read a prologue to my knowledge. If I did, it was by accident. I figure the important stuff is in chapter one.

Ironically, I started the sequel to one book with a prologue and then nixed it because I realized I wouldn't even read it if I bought my own book. lol

I'm firmly anti-prologue.

I don't understand the venom against prologues. Most of my favorite stories have them. I enjoy anything extra an artist can give me, whether it's deleted scenes on a DVD from a movie or a scene that happened ten years prior to the actual story that follows the prologue. To say that all prologues are the creation of lazy writers is like saying all *insert stereotype person* likes *stereotype thing* because they are *stereotype*. Most stories don't need a prologue because the story is self-contained. But sometimes a story is so vast and complex, a bit of a heads up is needed for a reader.

It doesn't depend on how good the prologue is, it depends on whether the story requires a prologue. Some do, some don't. I see no point in stripping out a prologue that you (the author) think serves an important purpose in a story, at least not before an agent or editor sees it. If the general feedback is to cut it, then obviously it's time to reassess how important you think that prologue is. But I view this question the same way I view writing to a hot trend - ultimately, your success comes from writing your story, not what other people think your story should be.

Sometimes I think prologues can just be chapter 1 or just dropped all together. Sometimes they create a good frame of reference for the author but not the reader, in which case the author can write it, use it, but when he's finished drop it.

Pat Rothfuss' prologue to THE NAME OF THE WIND is the greatest prologue I've ever read. Ever.

I think it depends a lot on the genre of the book, and frankly, I LOVE the idea that the prologue can be from another PoV than the rest of the book--I don't see it as lazy at all if used right. I like a mystery where it gives what the rest is pulling toward, or suspense where the reader gets a hint just how dark things ARE.

Probably YA isn't the place for them... no matter how much I love prologues, neither of my kids has ever been willing to listen to one (or read one)--they are for a better attention span, I guess.

I voted on it depending on how good the prologue is.

In my first and second drafts, I took about two chapters to convey some background to the story. It was really slow (though it had its moments), and there was a lot that was unimportant.

So I changed it to a first-person present-tense, italicized preface, only writing the "moments" and I'm so glad I did. It's more exciting, and it sets up the conflict a lot faster. This is probably the best move I have made.

However - I don't think every book needs a preface. Actually, if every book had a preface, we could call it...Chapter 1.

The blanket "all prologues are bad" statements are amusing. I've read some realy bad prologues and I've read some very good ones.

The best ones in my mind (or at least for the types of books I read) serve as a hook or set up a mystery that the protagonist can't know about in chapter 1. For books written in very limited 3rd person with only one or a few POV narrators, a prologue can give the reader a glimpse into something the POV characters won't see for a hundred pages or more. It can create suspense, letting the reader glimpse the shadow at the end of the tunnel that's await the hero(ine).

Most books don't need prologues, but some books can use them to great effect.

I think part of the dislike of prologues stems from the fact that most aren't very good or are, good or bad, are unnecessary. But sometimes, they're brilliant. I love the prologue from Steinbeck's "Sweet Thursday," for example.

The rare good prologue is from a different POV, and might contain some sort of setup, like something that happened centuries before. It is not an info dump, but more like a very short story on its own.

Now epilogues--I hate epilogues, especially the kind that tell you what happened to every character years later. So many good books have been spoiled by those.

I almost always like them. Love an appetizer before the meal.

Liberty Speidel--I agree. I have a prologue in my current WIP. I call it chapter 1.

It's a shame nobody seems to have an opinion or bothered sharing their thoughts about prologues.

I prefer epiprologues which appear at the center of the novel, are usually told in 2nd person perspective, and generally attempt to insult the reader with comments about their questionable legitimacy, oral hygiene, and toe fungus.

I don't mind prologues which are purposeful. For example, if it explains how a house became haunted (two children were murdered and buried in the basement). Then chapter 1 begins with the new family moving in. I like that. It's just a little back story which answers questions a writer doesn't want to put in the main story for whatever reason.

What I don't like are prologues which really aren't prologues. For example, an italicized prologue which seems like it'll explain something later in the novel, only to find the writer has italicized whole chapters within the novel which continue the story of the prologue. That's not a prologue; it's a separate story meshed in with the main plot. Personally, I think it's deceptive.

Go Prologues!!!

I've read my share of bad prologues (preambles, preludes,prefaces, etc), but when they work, they work. I can't condemn a whole novel because someone's style preference is to include a prologue. Plus, I just love getting a lil morsel before the real show starts. As I've seen a lot of people state in the comments, my favorites are the ones that come from a different voice/character than the protagonist.

So...how would you borderline pro-prologuers feel about a scene that happens over 50 years after the main action of the novel? So it's like an epilogue-ish prologue thingy.

Alright... yay prologues! the end.

Also! Also! I read a lot of complaints about prologues being a trust-deterrent for readers, BUT I like to see more than one side of a writer. For me, it demonstrates control and precision when an author contrasts the voice in the prologue with the voice of the novel, especially if writing the the rest of the novel in first person or an intimate 3rd person.

so yeah...

I think the well-written prologue can be a tasty morsel to ease into an epic science fiction or fantasy novel. But then again, if you are writing something that can be described as both "well-written" and "epic," you'll probably already know whether or not your intended prologue will work.

I'd say in most other cases it should either be cut, or it should be chapter one.

Prologues have never bothered me. Honestly while reading I never put much thought into them.

Forwards & any form of explanatory letter before a novel...now those are another story

The other thing about a prologue is that if it's well done, you can either read it or skip it. If you read it, your experience of the story will be slightly enriched, if you don't it's no big deal. I am sad that some people won't even read a book if they see it has a prologue.

I chose option 3. For me, a good prologue will set up a question or a scene that you want answered or to know more about by reading the subsequent chapters. It's a teaser. They don't always work, however, and that's where the problem lies.

I voted that it depends on how good the prologue is. It also depends sometimes on the chronology and structure of the story. Think "Love in the Time of Cholera." (Although now that I do think of it, I don't think "Love in the Time of Cholera" actually has a prologue. Hmmmm...)

I voted that it depends on how good the prologue is, but I can't think of many situations where a prologue is necessary. If it's to provide back story, I would work it into the novel later. If it's to provide action, character development, etc., why not call it Chapter 1?

If there's a good reason for a prologue, then sure, throw it in there. The problem is that some prologues don't feel necessary, as if they're just there to take up space because the info. provided isn't too important and/or could be placed elsewhere in the novel.

Without reading any of the comments, because it is LATE and I have a big day tomorrow (but I will read over the weekend):

It depends on how good the prologue is. I hate prologues that are actually an excerpt from later in the book; that's cheating the reader out of the pleasure of not knowing what is coming next, and it isn't a prologue anyway, it's a trailer (or, as we call it when we go to the movies, a preview or a teaser). Besides, if I'm holding the book, I can just flip through it to find the exciting parts anyway if I need to know that there are exciting parts before I'll commit to reading the book. No need to just paste them onto the first page.

I also hate prologues that are really the author talking about how they wrote the book, or why they wrote the book, or whatever. I just want to read the book, and if I want that other stuff, I'll look for an appendix. And if I need to know why or how an author wrote a book in order to properly appreciate the book, the book probably wasn't written as well as it could have been.

I really like prologues that give us some important backstory - for example, if the book starts when the MC is 16, but we need to know that the MC was raped by her uncle at the age of 9, I wouldn't mind a prologue that showed that happening so that we are grounded in this important part of who our MC is.

One of my WIPs has a prologue. It's a war scene which occurs a decade before the rest of the action. While it is set up, it is fast-paced and interesting. In fact it's so good, that I had to start upgrading the rest of the book after I added it! lol!

IMO, a prologue should show us a scene we would otherwise not have seen, but it shouldn't be an info dump. A trend I've noticed of late is the prologue, which isn't really a PROlogue, but actually something which happens somewhere near the climax of the story. I'm a pretty impatient person, so knowing what's going to happen, but not how it happens, usually just bugs me.

I tend to skim through prologues because they don't make much sense at the beginning. But I always go back at the end to read them again. At that point the prologues are really interesting. And I think it's because the author writes his/her prologue after the novel is finished and of course knows exactly what the story is about.

I decided long ago that I liked prologues.

I feel that a prologue should be part of your writing style and not just a tool.

But at the same time, your prologue should be useful in someway, not just an info dump. I like to use mine to set up the story in some way...

...and I also like to make sure that they hook the reader into chapter one. They should be short and sweet as well. The days of having a chapter long prologue have disappeared.

I suppose, in the end, the choice to have a prologue is a personal one!

I voted "Yes" mainly because I don't see an alternate solution.

Well, unless we make an international replication of what happens at my local writer's conference: host an Idol competition. I got an request to submit to an agent that way, back in 2008.

How it works: a volunteer author (in this case, Jack Whyte with his sexy Scottish brogue) reads the opening of three-page submissions aloud to a panel of agents and the audience. Eventually, one of the agents says "Stop right there" and the panel picks apart why they would or would not take it. The first agent to say, "I want that" gets dibs, and the author speaks to the agent after the competition. I thought it was great.

(Except, silly me, I'd just begun writing my WIP back in 2008, and I had a lot more learning to do, so I'm still deep in rewrites. Ah well, even if the offer's expired, it was good for my self-esteem.)

Yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes.

Right now, it's the mouse trap of choice and until someone builds a better one, it does the job.

Sure, it may not be 100% accurate, a few may get away, and it can really leave a mess sometimes, but it is what it is.

Queries aren't always easy, but it would be far worse for agents to have to wade through full manuscripts in a slush pile on the floor. The amount of time to read - and wait - would be a lot worse.

The internet makes submitting so much easier that there needs to be some way to wade out the ones that don't fit an agent's needs easily.

The query system has worked for many authors that I know, even ones that had no prior publishing credits, so my answer is a definite YES.

Querying is frustrating, imperfect and often leads to a lot of authors giving up and searching for easier ways to get published.

For the authors who really want to be published, they find a way through it. They practice their query writing skills, they get feedback, and they get better. If we can spend years learning how to write a book, how to edit and perfect our skills, why can't we spend a little longer lerning how to market it?

Is querying perfect? No. Does it work? Yes.

The existing query process works to some extent, but like all things needs some upgrading. It seems very much a 'hit or miss' strategy in the selection. Add this to an agent who has already been aggravated by bad submissions, and your query may get an unfair assessment, if it even gets assessed.

All we can hope for is that our story stands on its own merit, our query avoids all the prohibited mistakes, and that the agent has had a good morning or afternoon.

IMO, a gatekeeper such as an agent is necessary and preferable to judgment by the masses (such as the Amazon ratings). Not all those who like to cruise & drop reviews on Amazon are purchasers. They have their own agendas.

I think the whole query/slush process is flawed, because editors are the ones who buy books, but agents read slush. That's backwards.

It would be nice if the system allowed agents to focus on getting the best possible deals/contracts for their author clients. The system now seems to force agents to focus on reading the minds of editors, even though they are supposed to work for the WRITERS, not the editors. And it forces writers to write to agents tastes rather than editors, and the editors are the ones who actually buy the book.

It makes no sense at all, really.

When I go into the bookstore, the first thing I look at is shelf of the genre I like. Then I look at covers and read the blurbs. Of those, I select a few and read the first pages.

How is querying any different? In other words, agents simply use the same criteria that future book buyers will use.

I think it's very possible for someone to write a great query and a blah novel. They're completely different types of writing. Not so sure if it's likely a writer would write a blah query and a great novel if she's properly done her homework about queries.

As someone already said, it's in the definition. It does NOT work if great novels aren't being discovered, but none of us know whether that's the outcome or not.

Yep, I think it works.

If I were to improve the system, it would be to standardize what was sent to agents -- query letter, first five pages, and synopsis seems to cover all the bases. Agent could then pick and choose as needed.

I want to believe

I would have said no six weeks ago, when I was furiously sending out queries and receiving rejections at just as furious a pace. Then an agency I had approached months earlier, and had long since written off as not interested, expressed interest

My query hit the right note with the right person at the right time. But my email may have never even gotten read if I hadn't been able to include in my subject line the name of a friend the agency already represented.

Now that I'm happily signed with the agency, I'm inclined to say that the process works. But I'll probably whether it was my letter that made the difference, or the connection.

First, thanks, Nathan. Thanks for opening this discussion and letting us weigh in on this.

My take:

Oh my goodness, no, the query system doesn't work.

I agree with Strata. The proof is in the pudding, and the pudding says:


a. Agents are absolutely overwhelmed.

b. Writers are spending literally months of their lives on the query, when they should be spending it on their genre writing skills.

c. 15% earn out rate.

Queries screen for the wrong thing.

Also, there are just too many of them, and their format is too cumbersome to allow for any clarity.

In addition, unfortunately, there's a logical fallacy in the idea that any writer can write anything. I wish that were true. I'd try to make a killing writing country lyrics.

If every single writer could write in every single genre, then every single writer could write: screenplays, poetry, sales copy, horror, romance, children's picture books, erotica, literary fiction, comic strips, science fiction, country lyrics, opera lyrics oh and business letters.

I'm not sure even Shakespeare could to that!

On the other hand, there's no arguing that the query is better than the referral system. But it's a stepping stone. There is a better system out there that the query is leading us to - one that doesn't exhaust agents, one that allows writers to hone the right skills and one that brings the cream of the writing crop to the top.

I firmly believe that.

No, it doesn't.

Let me follow that up by saying - mostly. :)

I think the idea that some agents read a query - but no pages = and make their determination based on that is inane.

It's like a job interview (I do zillions of them a week - that's zillions!!) Sure I can spot a few wackos before I even talk to them. I had a lady show up in pajama pants once - no I'm not kidding. I have also had people interview for 75k/years jobs in Metallica t-shirts. Yes, I form a first impression, and yes I am often right.

But you know what? I ALWAYS talk to them. I have had my mind changed. It is NEVER worth dismissing someone based on their resume/clothing choice. The number of quality people I would have missed is not tremendous, but it is significant.

By the same token, if an agent is not reading pages, I would have to wonder just how serious they are about finding new work/clients.

So do queries work? Probably not,

Do query PACKAGES (w/ pages, synopsis etc) work - seems to me they are a better yardstick at least...

I can say this as someone who has been agented, sold a novel, and is now unagented: I don't think it works at all. I think, honestly, it's more luck than anything else. It depends what the mood of the agent is, what other queries he's just read, how busy he/she is and numerous other things.

I think being able to paste five or ten pages is a better indicator than the query. Certain plot-heavy books are easier to query because you can automatically give a sense of urgency. Character X needs Y or T will happen, etc... Other, more conptemplative or character-based books don't fare as well. And if you can't get that initial interest, no one asks for pages to see they'll love it.

I think the process works. It worked for me! But what writers need to remember is that it doesn't stop at the query letter. Waiting is hard, I KNOW. But you wait on queries, and then you wait on revisions, and after that you wait on subs, then you wait on editorial notes...

It's one in the same. The process is a necessary evil. And I am aware that MANY GREAT writers are overlooked in the query process. Agents receive hundreds of emails per week. And they read these queries and sample pages and requested subs for free. They're doing the best they can, just like us. You just have to be persistent and keep at it no matter what! :D

Queries work swimmingly for plot-based books. They do not work so well for literary or character-based fiction.

It works within the current publishing model, though there is room for improvement in regard to processing and responding to the queries.

In order to be published, an author's work has to get through the gatekeepers to get to the publishers who decide what is marketable. The high cost of printing and the difficulty in placing books in bookstores limited the number of players in the industry and there is no easy way for a limited number of publishers to consider such a vast number of prospective books. However, as the cost of printing goes down (demand printing and ebooks) and the number of books sold online goes up, this model will change.

If books don't have to be printed first in order to be available for sale, there is going to be much less risk and cost involved in making a novel available for sale.

I don't think it will be long before some agents, editors, and marketers come together to offer a service whereby they bypass the regular publishers and become "micro publishers" themselves. When and if that happens, more routes to publication will open and then the process may change. It will be something between traditional publishing and self-publishing.

Until then, there has to be a way for a virtually unlimited number of prospective manuscripts to be screened and considered for publication. I do think that agents that request a sample and synopsis with the query are much less likely to miss a gem, though.

Of course it works--new writers are getting published all the time. I'm sure some really great books are passed over, but that's going to be true for any system.

I don't like the query process, and I don't think it's ideal for any party (publishers, agents, or authors). However, it does seem to be a valuable tool for agencies and publishers seeking new material while trying to weed through the massive amount of submissions.

It's far easier to read a 200-400 word query letter than 5-30 pages. Furthermore, reading the first 5-30 pages doesn't really give an idea of the storyline, it just shows whether the writer has talent or not. A successful story needs both the writing skills and the great story.

As an author, I think of the query process as burning bridges. Sending a query is a one shot deal. If the query doesn't hook the agent the first time, it's a no go for that project even if the writer makes changes. The worst is not receiving feedback, which can mean the author ends up shooting blindly the next time around also.

Still, what other choices are there? I can't imagine agents have time to sift through pages of a writer's work without knowing the storyline. And why bother even reading the pages if the story sounds drab or not the agent's thing?

In the end, queries are a matter of practicality. Until someone develops a better process, it's the one we have.

Hmmm, yes I did write a perfect query after about two hundred tries, a lot of research, and year after my MS was done. Problem is I lost the one I wanted to send out, now I have to read all two hundred of them again to find that perfect one.

Oh well the world will have to wait a little longer.

I voted, no, because I think the work is more important. But I can't speak for agents, it may work for them.

I do wonder why the obsession with query letters. They use to be needed only for non-fiction writers, or so I'm told.

The 'it worked for me' reasoning is like asking a group of lotto players if they think the lottery is a good way to make money. Sure, a lot are going to say it worked for them, but that doesn't mean the lottery is where folks should be building their retirement nest-egg.

The query system is dumb. I know, my falutin is pretty high, eh? But seriously, think about it this way. If you owned a sports team, would you want your players to be on the field practicing, or up in the front office negotiating their contract? You want them practicing, which is why agents come into play; so the writers are writing, not wasting (err spending) their time on all the b'niss. But now, with the amount of time, skill and effort wasted (errr, again I mean spent!) on queries, it's about time writers need query agents to help them get an agent-agents.

If I'm an agent (I'm not), I don't want my writers spending copious amounts of time--and from the people I've talked to they've spent TONS of it--on the querying process (much more than just the query itself, mind you). I want them WRITING.

On the flip side, if I'm a writer (I'm not, really, lol), I don't want an agent who spends copious amounts of time reading queries. Surely, that's the hugest waste of time possible... there are so many better things the agent could be doing.

So, where are we... the writers need agents to get agents, and the agents need assistants with assistants... all, imo, because the bloated corpse that is the query system.

But what alternatives are there? Well, this is why I'm a believer of the short story. The only one left in America, granted, but I still believe! Writers practice their craft, find their voice, learn how to actually formulate an effing story arc, and publish short fiction which makes their parents proud and makes them a little scratch (very little). Win for the writer, right? But how will the agent know about the writers?

Well, they read the effing plethora of short stories that are being published. Or, better yet, word of mouth and assistants lead the agents to the short stories. And guess what, they HAVE a sample of your work already. The best part is the short fiction publishers do most of the filtering. Even bester part, the agents are reading contemporary fiction and aren't becoming out of touch (novel idea, eh?).

And yes, this DOES currently happen, though it's not the norm I don't believe. Why? Hell if I know. Probably because writers don't want to write short stories, because they aren't marketable and there is no reason to... but there would be if it was THE way to find agents, as they would find you, and wouldn't have to dig through the shit-tillion queries of people that found them, but aren't what the agent is looking for.

I know, I know, there are those that say short fiction and novels are just such different writing... horsepoo. Sure, some people are better with different forms, but as someone said here about writing queries, good writers can write good. The notion that one can be an amazing novelist, but crappy short fiction writer, is mostly, imo, grounded in the fact that the competition to get short fiction published in a reputable journal is even harder than getting a novel picked up (imo!). The standards for short fiction seem higher, the level of writing expected to be better and more tight. So, god forbid, by encouraging more novelists to 'have to' write short stories to get agents, maybe the quality of novels would actually go up a bit, which imo is sorely needed.

In conclusion, shrug.

My first instinct is to answer:

"Yes, it works...like Health Care in this country."

But, that would be very wrong of me.

Truth is, as horrid as it is to have to write a query, it's the author trying to 'sell' the agent on their book (and ultimately them as a client)

So it's a necessary evil. Sure, I've seen many great queries that didn't have the great MS to back it up. And vice/versa. Sucky query, great book--that will never get read because the writer didn't appropriately convey the tone, plot and 'voice' of the book in question.

So many 'rules' about queries, but funny thing, I had the best luck (publication) from a query I wrote in first person POV. Rule breaker alert!

So it's a very dicey, subjective thing. Lots of luck involved, IMHO. Right time, right place, right agent/publisher.

But what are the alternatives? I do agree that agents that accept the first 5-10 pages with the query probably have a more accurate representatation of the work being submitted. Because the writer should be able to hook the reader by that point. If not, shame on us.

(Or them for not 'getting' it, depending on your perspective!)

A lot of people here seem to be answering the question: "Is the query system perfect?"

Well, of course not. No system is perfect.

But the query system has managed to put more books on the shelves that I would want to read than I could possibly afford to read in my lifetime, either through time or money. That's my qualification of if it works or not.

The problem here has nothing to do with the query system, or publishers trying to shove work off on agents. It has to do with far more prospective writers than the current publishing ecology can handle.

If writers are preditors and reader are prey, there's just not enough prey to support the number of preditors. Even with most of those preditors being prey themselves.

What happens when you have too many preditors? There's more competition for each prey animal. None off the bitching and moaning about the query system that goes on is addressing the real problem: There aren't enough readers.

No matter how efficient you make the system for picking the best preditor, most of them are going to starve.

(sorry! blogger freaked and double-posted my comment)

anon-

I would have if the author signed their name Cormac McCarthy. I wouldn't even have minded that he spelled cannibal wrong.

"A father and son travel along a lonely road facing canibals and starvation as they head toward the ocean in a post-apocalyptic tale."

Would you have requested more?

It worked for me. If you can't write a couple of convincing paragraphs regarding what's cool about your own book, then either your book isn't that cool or you don't know your own book very well or you don't write convincingly or some combination of the three. And that's probably enough--in the general case--for most agents to judge by. Also, I included the first 5 pages of my novel with every query I sent, no matter what the agent's policies said.

Personally, I hate it. It's the equivalent of asking a singer to sing two notes for an audition. The ability to tell a story isn't the same as writing a query and I think it does a disservice to some writers who may not be able to write a concise marketing piece, while it might help those who are better at marketing than writing.

However, it's not like I can think of any other idea for the process.

No. I think it is a flawed way to go about finding new talent, or even new works from previously published talent. Advice on query writing usually includes some version of “think jacket copy - but include the ending.” And it’s universally accepted that a writer is, or certainly should be, qualified for the task. But let me ask you this: How many publishers ask the author to write the jacket copy? I’d guess none. Why is that? After all, wouldn’t it save the publisher money?

They don’t ask authors to do it because they wisely employ skilled, trained marketing people to do it. People in whom they have much more confidence than they have in the author for something so important.

The music business has an intense, never-ending need for talent too. But they don’t ask for a demo tape of 10-20 seconds which somehow magically encompasses everything the artist has created. They listen to the actual music, not a summary of it. I get it that listening to a 3-5 minute demo tape is a lot different than spending an hour or two reading 3-5000 words of a manuscript. And I get it that publishers and agents are deluged with submissions. But I’d guess there are just as many new musical acts seeking recording contracts as there are writers seeking publishing. Finding new talent, and new works from established talent, is equally vital to both the music business and the book business. But the music business takes it more seriously. Publishers rely on established authors for everything, and devote little time seeking new writers. If the music business went about things like publishers do The Rolling Stones would still be chart toppers.

I’m not saying I know how to fix it. I don’t. But I don’t know how to fix the furnace in my house either, but I can tell when it’s broken.

No. I think it is a flawed way to go about finding new talent, or even new works from previously published talent. Advice on query writing usually includes some version of “think jacket copy - but include the ending.” And it’s universally accepted that a writer is, or certainly should be, qualified for the task. But let me ask you this: How many publishers ask the author to write the jacket copy? I’d guess none. Why is that? After all, wouldn’t it save the publisher money?

They don’t ask authors to do it because they wisely employ skilled, trained marketing people to do it. People in whom they have much more confidence than they have in the author for something so important.

The music business has an intense, never-ending need for talent too. But they don’t ask for a demo tape of 10-20 seconds which somehow magically encompasses everything the artist has created. They listen to the actual music, not a summary of it. I get it that listening to a 3-5 minute demo tape is a lot different than spending an hour or two reading 3-5000 words of a manuscript. And I get it that publishers and agents are deluged with submissions. But I’d guess there are just as many new musical acts seeking recording contracts as there are writers seeking publishing. Finding new talent, and new works from established talent, is equally vital to both the music business and the book business. But the music business takes it more seriously. Publishers rely on established authors for everything, and devote little time seeking new writers. If the music business went about things like publishers do The Rolling Stones would still be chart toppers.

I’m not saying I know how to fix it. I don’t. But I don’t know how to fix the furnace in my house either, but I can tell when it’s broken.

No. I think it is a flawed way to go about finding new talent, or even new works from previously published talent. Advice on query writing usually includes some version of “think jacket copy - but include the ending.” And it’s universally accepted that a writer is, or certainly should be, qualified for the task. But let me ask you this: How many publishers ask the author to write the jacket copy? I’d guess none. Why is that? After all, wouldn’t it save the publisher money?

They don’t ask authors to do it because they wisely employ skilled, trained marketing people to do it. People in whom they have much more confidence than they have in the author for something so important.

The music business has an intense, never-ending need for talent too. But they don’t ask for a demo tape of 10-20 seconds which somehow magically encompasses everything the artist has created. They listen to the actual music, not a summary of it. I get it that listening to a 3-5 minute demo tape is a lot different than spending an hour or two reading 3-5000 words of a manuscript. And I get it that publishers and agents are deluged with submissions. But I’d guess there are just as many new musical acts seeking recording contracts as there are writers seeking publishing. Finding new talent, and new works from established talent, is equally vital to both the music business and the book business. But the music business takes it more seriously. Publishers rely on established authors for everything, and devote little time seeking new writers. If the music business went about things like publishers do The Rolling Stones would still be chart toppers.

I’m not saying I know how to fix it. I don’t. But I don’t know how to fix the furnace in my house either, but I can tell when it’s broken.

jeffrey-

I don't know, how the music industry treats demo tapes sure sounds a lot like the query process. 3-5 minutes for a good query plus sample pages sounds about right. I somehow doubt they listen to the whole 3-5 minutes of every mix tape.

"A young girl remembers life with her family in racist Mississippi as her father defends a black man in a rape trial while she and her brother try to catch a glimpse of the mysterious loner at the end of their street."

It depends on how this question is interpreted. I think there are many agents out there who are really great people and who love literature – and this definitely includes Nathan. I know quite a few authors who have received phone calls and long emails from agents telling them that their manuscript is outstanding, but probably won’t sell enough copies, so they have to reject their book. Years ago, I read about mid-list authors who were happy to remain mid-list authors, and the big publishing companies were happy to keep on publishing them. One such author had something like thirty books published by a large publishing house. Recently, I’ve read quite a few blogs by agents and authors talking about how authors selling only at mid-list level in today’s market have been refused future contracts because they didn’t bring in enough money. Some of those authors (and I know some of them personally from online writers’ groups) were told to consider using a pen name, in order to appear to be a debut author, if they ever wanted to get another book published. There are many excellent books out there. Many of the best books are published by the big publishing houses, but others that would have been great mid-list books are now published by indie presses. This year, an indie press novel by a debut author who had trouble getting published won the Pulitzer Prize in Literature. The novel only sold 15,000 copies, considered "nothing by commercial standards" according to USA TODAY. Here’s the article: Paul Harding’s debut, 'Tinker,' takes Pulitzer Prize for fiction. So, I answered "No" for "Do You Think the Query Process Works?" because, for me personally, the query process will work when agents are free to offer contracts for every submission they consider exceptionally well-written and no longer feel compelled to reject outstanding manuscripts because they might not sell enough copies. Until then, I buy some of my books from big publishing houses, some from indie presses, and some that are self-published.

And I don’t accept the argument that publishing houses have to do business this way in order to stay in business, considering that CEOs of corporations that own multiple publishing houses are multi-billionaires. They’re nowhere near going out of business. Here’s an article about Albert Frère who sold back his 25% percent stake in Bertelsmann to Bertelsmann (Bertelsmann owns many companies, including Random House which in turn owns many publishing houses): The Relentless Hunt for the Next Deal. This excerpt is particularly interesting:

Deals, Mr. Frère freely acknowledges, while sitting in his favorite high-backed crimson chair in an apartment furnished with 18th-century antiques, are his drugs.

"Listen," he said with a mischievous smile, "it’s so enriching and really amusing to succeed at a deal. It’s like when little children receive gifts. For me, it’s the same thing. It’s why I often say to work hard, but do it with pleasure."

Mr. Frère’s heady, high-stakes play is just as intoxicating to analysts and rivals eager to anticipate the next move of this self-made billionaire, sometimes called the Warren Buffet of Belgium because of his diverse portfolio of value-driven investments.

anon-

Does the author mention that she can get a blurb from Truman Capote?

Also: I've seen S.E. Hinton's query for The Outsiders. There are so many debut classics that went through the query process it really disproves this whole "would you have spotted such and such" game.

Considering most agents ask for the first 5-10 pages to accompany the queries, YES, I do think the query process works.

The query is to "hook" agents with your premise, your pitch -- frankly, if the premise of your book won't hook agents, how will it do readers? And if agents can always read the first 5-10 pages to judge your actual writing. Personally, I've stopped reading books after fewer pages, so I believe 5-10 pages are perfectly sound numbers.

I can't say I'll enjoy going through the query process, but yes, it's fair and it works.

I'm tired. I can't help my spelling when I'm tired. *lol* But what if he hadn't signed his name Cormac McCarthy? Who would have taken a chance on that book had they not known the author?

What if he'd been a completely new author?

I'm not saying the world couldn't have lived without The Road, but it is one of my favorite books and I wonder how many other amazing books are turned away because of a bad or non-descript query letter...because no one took a chance to read even a few pages. You can usually tell within a page if the book is going to be horribly written. Wouldn't it make much more sense to have authors send in their first page? Or maybe the query and first page?

Anon, I find that sort of funny. It's not a question of whether your most simplistic description of The Road is enticing. It's a question of whether Cormac McCarthy could write a single page query interesting enough to get a request from an agent. I'm pretty sure Cormac wouldn't be bitching about the impossibility of the query. I have a feeling he can write a bit. And that would include a query. Hell, I'd read that man's grocery list.

I didn't do an actual count, but by what I read, "not sure" would have gotten the most votes. But that option wasn't available. Most of us who read you and other agents blogs are not published authors or have even queried. So how can we assess a system that we have so little information or experience with?

Okay, here's an idea I've got.

It's still querying but has a few elements that might eliminate a few friction points...smooth out the funnel from wannabe to rejection/acceptance. Because while we all want acceptance, what is needed is quick and relatively painless exchange..."want to see this?" "um, no." OR "hell, yes!"

Have a big SUBMIT QUERY TO NATHAN button on your website homepage. No more emails. (agent gets his email in-box back, woot!) When an author clicks on it they are sent to a simple form (I am thinking it would look like wufoo's forms).

The first fields are the basics: name, contact info, word count, genre and/or category.

Radio button the genre/category options and ONLY options are the areas the agent reps (here is next major friction point reduction effort: this would hopefully contribute to massively reducing the submissions that don't fit the agent). Include one "other" type-in field for the hybrid or "hey, I never knew I wanted to rep that!" gem; yes idiots will abuse this field but they'd all be together since the database report can be sorted by the radio button entries.

Then a field for the query itself. Limited word/character count visible on the screen = set by agent's preference i.e. 150 words.

Then a field for the author info, background, publishing history. Limited word/character count visible on the screen = set by agent i.e. 150 words.

All elements are coded so if author skips/forgets...say contact info...form won't submit. No more incomplete queries!

Form submissions dump into simple database report...sortable by genre, word count, type of genre/category, etc.

Plus length of query/author details is controlled with the agent's preferred word count, so pacing through the day's subs might be more predictable and hence more manageable and quicker to process.

The beauty is more for the agent than the authors but anything that makes process simpler, quicker and flow better for Nathan/agents... the better for us authors.

stupid idea or a maybe?

wufoo is free for a single form with report and 100 replies. easy to test-pilot!

As you've declined mine, I would have to say no. ;)

Seriously, my own work aside, I can't think of anything better but I'm not happy with the query process.

As an editor, I really feel I need to read more of the work than a query + five before I can say whether or not I'm interested in publishing it. On the other hand, a query letter will definitely indicate if it's something I will never be interested in publishing.

Queries with synopis? Query with a larger writing sample? Query with an outline? Query with the whole manuscript?

I say yeah. We use a submissions management system that works great, filters out a lot of chaffe, doesn't bomb our computers with viruses and has an automatic confirmation email and a set up for a form rejection and form acceptance. We can read the cover, read the submission in pdf, no obligation to go past page five, nothing standing in the way of reading to the end if we are intrigued.

I can't imagine what kind of query letter some of the most recent great novels would have read like. Can you imagine querying 'Atonement'. Or 'The Road'? :)

I would say that it works for some writers and most agents. I would guess that it doesn't work for the majority of writers. The editors, on the other hand, are having a field day.

The process works, but its overall relevance has shrunk in the last few years and will continue to do so.

"Also: I've seen S.E. Hinton's query for The Outsiders. There are so many debut classics that went through the query process it really disproves this whole "would you have spotted such and such" game."
-------
The Outsiders was published in 1967, not 2010. Completely different universe as far as the publishing industry.

It's funny, the biggest no-no in a query is to say that your book will make soooooo much money, when really, that's all they want to hear anyway.

I don't know why writers always say, "they should read the wholel thing before deciding." How sillyl is that? How do you pick which 2-hour movie to go see? From the 30 second trailers they show you online and on tv, or from the 2-sentence descriptions on the netflix site. When your book is for sale in the store or on Amazon, how do you think people will make the decision to buy it? By the cover and the jacket copy.

So if you, the author, can't convince agents/editors/publishers to at least take a look at the opening chapters, then how are you going to get book buying consumers to plunk down their cash and time to read an unknown writer's book? Many naively think "the publisher will get people to buy it with ther magical promotion wizardry," but that's not true. If you lack the skills to sell it to agents and publishers now, it means you also lack the skills to sell it to the public at large--perhaps because of your pitch, perhaps because of the book itself, perhaps both.

Most stuff just isn't that marketable, economically viable, commercially competitive, pick your phrase of choice.

It's worked for me so far, I have an agent and a manuscript on submission (and fingers crossed).

I voted yes. I think it does work.

And the only alternative I can think of would be if writers just submitted sample pages with contact info and a list of publishing credits. But that would be so impersonal.

It works because it's fair.

Everyone is playing on the same level, everyone has a chance.

All of us is allowed a one minute chance to get published. It might not be the ideal for the writer himself, but the system is completely unbiased.

So the answer is yes.

anon-

Um. Do you think 1967 was the last time a book was published due to the query process?

From an outsiders' perspective, I say yes for the majority of cases. I'm sure there are some fine books out there that could have been published and loved, but the author just couldn't figure out the query thing. Does this mean there aren't frustrations? Of course there are! Writers want the process to move faster, agents want fewer poorly-written or ill-researched queries, and writers don't want to live in fear that 200 words could make or break their chance of getting published.

That said, my perspective could change once I start querying. I've done my homework, though, so I hope I'll be successful without too much fuss. (Who wouldn't want that?)

I don't know what a better system would be, though, unless a magic device was invented that allowed agents to actually read all the manuscripts in the normal time they devote to queries.

Let me just state for the record that I know for a fact that those 3anon posts with the 1967 Outsiders one in the middle were not all by the same poster.

Is Amazon the new query system? Sell enough there on your own (say 10,000+ copies within a year) and be selected by the bigs?

Seems like new writers have more options these days, and that, yeah, if you rise high enough, you'll have--and need--an agent, but the agent isn't the only way to break in anymore.

I'm voting no.

This is my experience of using the current query system.

It generated requests for a couple of full ms and about five or six partials. The first full was rejected with comments the second the agent's intern lost it and after re-submitting it nothing happened. I have a file full of rejection letters and some queries that just vanished into the ether - some of them snail mailed with SASEs. Nathan you rejected my query but at least I know you saw it and you replied that day.

I think luck plays a huge part in getting an agent. That and being in the first ten or so queries an agent reads.

I'm still new at it, like others, but I have always hated the idea of becoming a 'sales person' for my work. Isn't that the agent's job?

If agents are supremely gifted at picking out a good story just by the first line, or paragraph, shouldnt' we then just send the first page? They should be able to, from that,(and maybe a post saying what kind of book it is:paranormal, romance, historical fiction, etc.) tell if it is good enough to sell...right??

Also, since we are using e-mail, how hard is it to simply send the entire book? Then the agent can continue reading if he/she likes what they have read so far, cutting out the middle part of saying 'I like it, send more'.

Just a thought. I really do hate queries. But I am willing to sacrifice my comfort for the ones (agents) I love. *sniff sniff, smile*

The query system succeeds for publishers, but it fails as a system.

The theory is that it allows authors and agents to connect in order to sell a quality manuscript to a publisher. That does happen, and the publisher never has to sift through mounds of crap. But a system should also work efficiently.

The query process actually encourages the exponential proliferation of crappy writing. What is the most repeated advice about querying? "If you get a rejection, it's a step closer to an acceptance! Send it out again!"

Agents complain about the abysmal quality of the majority of the slush pile. They also complain about how much slush they get each week. Yet rejections are, by and large, form letters without usable advice to the author... and most of those form rejections say something like, "it's not right for me, but it might be right for someone else." So the crap not only gets into the system at the front end--it's encouraged to multiply once it's in.

How to fix it? I don't know. But I believe it's generally a poor system.

Mystery Girl,

Yes, luck plays a part, but the luck evens out when you query over time. If you keep re-querying, especially when you don't get a response, eventually you'll be one of the Q's the agent gets with fresh eyes (or whatever it is you think makes a difference).

Persistence is key. the approach is imporatnt too. Don't blow your wad, so to speak by sending queries all at once to your A-list. Have an A-list, B-list and C-list (say with 10 agents or so per list), and query in waves of 10 with about 3 agents from A, 3 from B, and 3 from C. That way, in case you realize a cpuple months later that you can make the Q better, you haven't already blown it with your top guns.

Also, never forget that no response does not equal no. Onyl no means no. Keep querying until you get a response. Don't be rediculous about it, and never call them, but hey, if 6 weeks go by and you've heard zilch, send it again. Every 6 six weeks. You'll get a response.

So how you go about the process can make a difference.

But more and more I think new writers don't even need an agent. An agent to do what? Handle all those massive sales and deal inquiries that are flooding your inbox? lol

Nathan:
Have you spent any time looking at Inkpop.com? I think the folks at Harper Collins are geniuses. They have created what is a essentially an online slush pile. It is the most exciting thing to happen to publishing in a long time, and it's going to replace the query system.
A number of agents turned down my manuscript LOVING EMILY because they thought the story was unmarketable and they didn't think girl readers would relate to a male protagonist. But I knew, if I could just get my book out there to girls, they would love it.
So I put it on Inkpop, and in two days it went from # 18,600 in the rankings to # 137. Now, it's at #62 and climbing daily. I have a growing fanbase and a pile of comments from readers telling me how much they love my male protagonist and my book. And I can contact any of them any time I want. My readers are my friends.
Inkpop is the best thing that ever happened to me as a writer. I think I could even self-publish and sell directly to my fanbase, without going through an agent and publisher. Check it out! And check out LOVING EMILY! Cheers, Anne Pfeffer

That blurb for THE ROAD would have intrigued me even if I'd never heard of Cormac McCarthy.

The query process seems like a fair way of weeding out people who haven't done their homework or can't follow formatting instructions. If you've got a good premise that resonates with the agent and your writing is strong, odds are with you.

On the flipside, I really appreciate the agents that share the specific projects they would love to see come across their desks. Oh and of course the agents who blog regularly (brownie point!)

I voted yes. Not because I think it's infallible, it's clearly not- we're always hearing stories about how the likes of JK Rowling was rejected a bazillion times or whatever but I simply don't see another realistic way of tackling all the would be novelists out there. I'm sure that if you have talent and you persevere (and you're open to looking at what might be wrong with your query) then eventually you'll get somewhere. It might not be easy to get published but the Query + 5 pages process really isn't so overwhelming? Admittedly I'm not at the querying stage so maybe my opinion isn't worth as much but the thought of querying doesn't bring me out in a cold sweat the way it seems to for the many many people who complain about it.

The art of the blurb is indispensible, especially down the line when you're established and need to send proposals for possible new books to editors. You don't want to have to write the whole thing out in order to find out if they'll buy it. There's no time for that--yo've got bills to pay, kids to feed, politicians to pay off...

How 'bout this 1-liner:

============================
A down-on-her luck history professor sees a chance to redeem herself when a serial killer with a penchant for participating in civil war renactments using live ammunition terrorizes the south.
============================

Do you really need to read the whole thig to 'get it'? Especially when accompanied with the word "thriller" in the query?

I think it used to. That is, I've sold novels by querying publishers.

Doesn't work with agents, though. I queried damn near every agent on the planet, yourself included, and got nothing but rejections. I finally got an agent when a friend recommended me to hers.

I voted yes, but I do think the process would be more effective if all queries could be accompanied by at least the first few pages of the manuscript.

I voted 'No,' but I actually really don't know.

I can tell you this. I've worked myself into a wicked case of Tendonitis learning how to write the very best book I can and learning to toe the genre line.

I've cranked out FOUR novels in four years.

My fourth one was my best, of course, after all that hard learning. However, I queried it AFTER the economy crashed.

***READ Mr. Bransford's 'Stepping Up Your Game' post. Read the line about publishers wanting 'the surest of the surest thing.'***

I got a truckload of requests for pages on all three of the previous novels, including tons for Fulls and received personal feedback.

This time I've received ONE request for a partial, no feedback.

Now I'm having a hard time believing the Query process will work for *me* and I really do not want to put in all those hours of research and such for a snowball's chance in heck at publication.

My hands hurt.

Time's they are a-changing and my stories are too wierd for New York. I am not a 'sure thing.' So, now I'm looking for ways to adapt to that fact.

ePublishing!

Chocolate!

Kittens!

Adapt or die.

I like Johnaskins idea of a checklist for filtering queries such as right genre for that agent, is ms finished, length, whatever that agent deems important - I really hate the no reply unless we're interested thing - I'd rather an auto reject than suffer that!

Jennifer Jackson, two months ago, posted some of her query stats. She works for the Donald Maass agency which isn't small. She probably gets 500 queries each month if not more.

Do you know what the percentage of people that followed the guidelines were? 48%.

MORE than half of the people who queried her for that period couldn't even follow a simple list of guidelines. How difficult can it be?

I've been following Nathan's blogs, among others, for months. I'm officially following him and others with my blogger account, but I choose to post anon because I don't want people to click my profile and head to my website just yet.

Why? I feel it's not polished enough, and I'd rather they not see it until I feel it is 101% polished.

A lot of people complain about rejections, but if 52% of those couldn't follow guidelines, it ain't the system that's broken!

Here's the blog entry in question for those interested:
http://arcaedia.livejournal.com/221529.html

Forgot to add something...

Rachelle Gardner recently blogged about the query system and there were many comments. Many believed that the sheer load popular agents have to deal with makes it impossible for them to give the same consideration to each query they received.

It's probably so, but the same is true in all professions. When I was a med student we were taught that each patient must be treated equally and fairly. In practice, we all knew this wasn't possible... you're not gonna have the same level of energy, or patience, after a 8 hours shift. We're human beings, not cylons... we are imperfect.

Erik at Pimp my Novel also blogged about how luck plays a HUGE role in a writer's success. If you query an agent who just signed his divorce papers this morning, he might not be receptive to a romance manuscript... what can you do about it? Nothing.

The truth of the matter is, we all want to be published, but the space is limited. Would we be more happy if we absolutely needed a referral? I've seen people who suggested it, but I bet you if we went back in time and talked to them around the time they sought representation for their first novel, they wouldn't feel that way.

Agents also need to protect themselves. Everyone can learn how to write a query, and there is no barrier to query any agent you want. It's fair, it costs nothing, presents no risk to us, once written takes seconds to send... but THEY are stuck with the load.

Agent also deal with the risks... People in black hats and sunglasses show up without an appointment, some received white powder in a cup, other granola bars... and let's face it, there are many crazies and assholes out there: http://theswivet.blogspot.com/2010/04/what-not-to-do-when-you-get-rejection.html

This morning I sent an e-mail to Nathan about a possible solution to his query deluge problem... a custom solution we developed for a clinic around here that allows to drag an e-mail from the Inbox to a folder to automatically send out a response... no copy/pasting, just click & drag.

When it dawned on me it could be applied to queries treatment, I thought it was a chance for me to give back. It was only after I sent it that I thought he could think I'm just some crazy lunatic who wants to send him a nasty virus bomb... it doesn't occur to us that crazy shit happens, but we've read enough about them to know it does.

The query system allows agents to be unbiased and to be impartial by giving everyone a chance to submit. If you're gonna vote no, then at least try to provide an alternative that would preserve the same fairness!

My 2¢

I find the process to be frustrating and a little overwhelming. Everyone wants something different, from just a letter, to five pages to fifty pages. And I know everyone admits up front that the publishing business is subjective, but so much plays into it that we have no control over. But I guess that is life. What's a girl to do?

I'd say YES. Writing is a skill, query is a form of writing, therefore writing query is a skill. You only get through once you're skilled enough.

The query is much like a degree on a resume. It indicates how dedicated a writer is to becoming a serious writer, how willing the writer is to listen to editor's, agents, and other professionals in the industry.

Striving for the query that will sell our hard work is worth working hard, studying, learning, and proving our abilities.


I have learned more about writing since trying to write a query letter which led to many revisions in the novel itself.

I think a short query letter and a few sample chapters plus synopsis is a good package. I hate the whole query only thing that some people want. I think the novel itself should be key, thus some sort of sample is needed. Fortunately, the editors whom I submit directly to all get a sample of the work with the query, not just the letter itself. So it works well enough.

The process is imperfect, certainly, but what are the alternatives? It's easy to say that the process prevents good writers from making it, but that's really not what the process is about. It's about getting rid of those who are not ready for publishing while giving those who are a chance to have their work examined.

Yes, it's hard, and it's horrible, and I want to tear my hair out at the number of drafts I've written. But I'm fine with it. I'm fine with it because I teach college, and I've hung around online and these people should not be published, nor should they be taking time from agents with their lengthy material when others are more deserving.

We all look at the query process with dread, but what would the world be like without it? I shudder to think of the fanfics, un-proofread forum-posted stories, and more that would be churned up because of the internet's ability to convince people that they both know how to write and deserve to be published.

Furthermore, the system did not evolve arbitrarily. Nathan's unearthed 110 year-old query response is proof of that. I have no doubt that in the early days, the query process involved more than just a synopsis or 5 pages, but I know that it always involved some kind of letter very much like the modern day query.

It's important to remember that authors who query are asking for a job. The query actually is more akin to a cover letter than any other type of writing. The manuscript itself is the job interview, but the resume and cover letter need to shine before even getting to that point. Like the query, the cover letter system evolved because it works, and it has been around for a long, long time. Just ask Leonardo Da Vinci: http://tinyurl.com/yeu33dh

Query-writing has become a niche skill in itself, creating more and more distance between the writer's writing and the agent. Let the writer's work speak for itself. If a writer sent a sample 5-10 pages FIRST, the agent could skim through that; if interested, could ask for more info such as the writer's biography, etc.

After all, when a reader goes to a bookstore and picks up a novel, he/she reads the first few pages...this is what sells books. It should be what sells a writer to an agent!

Having to craft a compelling query has helped me to review and revise my story. Whether or not my query attempts are successful, I see the good queries you have posted here and I do believe the process works. Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us so we can learn!

What the others have said about learning to write a query improving all over writing ability is absolutely true, so I don't regret it.

And I really can't imagine how to improve on the process either.

I think they do. Of course I also most often decide on reading a book based on the blurb with it (okay, only after I judge its cover. That looks so bad in writing.)

That being said, I would imagine a query letter plus sample pages would give the best results.

First off, I think we should change the name. Instead of query process, we should call it Microsoft.

You try to open a file, the gray box appears that says "file failed to open. Close and try again."

So you do.

"File failed to open. Close and try again."

And you think: I wonder if I'm opening it from the wrong place. So you try another route.

"File failed to open. Close and try again."

Hmm... maybe I'm supposed to open it using another program.

"File failed to open. Close and try again."

OK... how about on a different computer.

"File failed to open. Close and try again."

So you start fiddling.

And you don't get the message box. instead, the hourglass starts to spin. Ah-ha. Finally. Then:

"File failed to open. Close and try again."

And you wonder what you did that gave you the slightly better result. You try moving in that direction. The hourglass spins for a long time, and then:

"File failed to open. Close and try again."

So you do and this time you get the message immediately again.

I realize that it's not at all feasible to respond to all queries, or even more than the few truly promising- especially since it seems to encourage the crazies- but I also can't help but think of how much I'd have been able to refine both my query for my first book, and the book itself if, instead of "not for us, try again" I'd even got one sentence like: this doesn't sound like a mystery. or: this sounds really dull. Does anything happen? Or: The query letter is good, but the sample pages don't work. Etc.

I get why it has to happen, but I don't think it's actually beneficial to either side of the process to have people tweaking and tuning based on nothing more than, Ehhhhhhh...no. Try again.

It seems that people with agents tend to lean towards the "it's a great system that weeds out poor writers" camp, while those who are frustrated without agents claim it's a little unfair. I think the system could be much worse. And I can't think of anyway to make it fairer while being practical with an agent's time, which is valuable because it moves books. So I think it's the best system.

I'd like there to be a "kinda sorta" option.

You know, I'm wondering if my comment was a bit harsh, in terms of bull-dozing right over those who might not agree with me - like Ink....

Sometimes I get lost in the pleasure of debate.

But I want to acknowledge that those who see things differently may have a valid and legitimate perspective.

Um, except about queries.

ha, ha. Little joke there.

Seems to me it's about evenly lined up, in the comments anyway. I'm surprised, actually - I would have predicted mostly pro. That's interesting.

It hasn't worked for me, but maybe I just suck.
Or maybe i'm just saying I suck so that you think I am that writer who just thinks he sucks but really doesn't. OOooooh, there's that pain behind my eyes again.

I've heard so many horror stories about the query system, I now tuck my ms into bed, give it a hug and kiss, and wish it good night. For the past three months. Why? Because I love my book and have no trust in my query. I have no suggestions for improvement. I just am very scared of the process.

A good agent knows a killer query right off the bat. Nothing further should be necessary to know whether the work is good or not. If I were an agent I would look for four main elements in a query:

1) A tight logline, premise, thesis, or a two-sentence "story blurb" in the first paragraph, including title and number of pages.
2) The author knows how to write.
3) The material is something I want to rep, is not corny, stale, or too convoluted to grasp.
4) If I read this far, I would then look for a tight, detailed paragraph about the book.

Authors who think this does not work and that they need 5, 10, or 50 pages to explain their book are missing the point. How many writers have we encountered who cough and look around the room, trying to explain what their story is about? We have to be able to nail it on the spot.

No agent, editor, agency rep, has the time to sit around and listen to a long explanation. And often, in reality, if the writer can't nail the thesis or plot in one or two sentences, that's an indication of meandering, sleepy work. It's probably time to go back and chop, hone, or revise.

The beauty of a one-page query is that an agent can tell a lot about an suthor's skill and what he or she has to offer. It works!

I think it works well enough considering the alternatives. We can't expect agents or publishers to go through entire manuscripts. It would be brutal and the response time would be eternal. Of course like most processes (I hate the sound don't you) it could be improved.

A query letter is the business letter--you cannot escape it because it is necessary. Call it a cover letter, call it a resume, call it a c.v.

You cannot expect someone you want to do business with to just jump into your project (read: read your whole manuscript) without telling them what it is and why they should invest in it and in you.

I love the references to music, because it reminds me of when I was doing musical theatre. The directors commonly said that within 8 bars they knew whether or not a performer was going to work--none of this 'Let's hear the whole song and then make a decision'.

My last few books dealt with big concepts, the value of individuality, A grand conspiracy that stretched out over 100 years and three major wars, a war for the destiny of the solar system so people can live with dignity in the post scarcity economy.
Agents say they like big concepts but end up going for the tried and true so my next one (You'll get it next month) deals with a pizza guy battling vampires, devil worshipers, the invisible man, werewolves and aliens while trying to woo the time traveling babe of his dream.
Condensing the big concepts to three paragraphs makes sure the fluff (but fun to write) stuff gets more consideration then the big concepts you want.
One thing that would help would be a note, no bigger than the individual touches you put on two out of your three (The first one sucked) form letters to me, if the query needs work or the sample chapter.
I don't mean for this to sound bitter, but on my fourth novel I feel like I'm writing it so it will have a great query letter with a self contained first chapter instead of working on grand concepts.
But maybe that's a lesson I need to learn to be an author as opposed to a writer.

I'd love it if we could just send pages to the agents instead of the query letter. That's all they really need to see, since they all say the most important thing is the writing, right?

A lot of authors claim that the ability to write a query is a distinct and separate skill from the ability to write a novel. I disagree; the query is simply a short writing sample, and any author who is capable of putting together a coherent long-form narrative should have no trouble writing a short business letter.

A query is not a blurb. It's not a sales pitch. It's not a marketing material. Larding it up with puffery or advertising lingo will reduce the effectiveness of the query. Your goal is not to tell the agent that your book is good; your goal is to appear competent. The query is a test of the author's proficiency at communication in the English language, and it is a useful tool because the vast majority of people who submit fail this test.

If you can write four coherent, grammatical paragraphs that explain what your book is about in a way that makes sense, and if you send that query to twenty-five appropriate agents in a form that meets their individual submission criteria, you are likely to get at least a couple of requests.

If you can manage one clever or elegant phrase in your letter, your results might improve a little.

I think the query system succeeds more than it fails. But this notion that 'good writing' and 'good storytelling' will always find a home just isn't true. Maybe it's true most of the time, but there are great books that slip through the cracks on occasion.

Reading the last few comments, I'd say the query process works best, but I think most of the problems we have with it probably just goes back to the sheer number. it means agents are all pressed for time.

Think of the difference between when you go to the book store or library with two hours to pick a book or two, versus a trip where you have fiteen minutes, your parents, or spouse are waiting in the car and irritable.

When I'm rushed I just glance at the title, barely take in the cover, and then read the first few lines of the inside flap and it's a whole lot of:

This? No.

This? No.

In a world born of-- no.

Tommy Mcginty knows fear-- no.

This? No.

After the death of her husband-- No.

But when I've got hours to kill I'll take in the whole cover design, read the entire inside flap and then usually give the first page a shot, even when it's not something I normally go for.

When I'm rushed, I rarely end up with more than two books that I read to the end and enjoy. When I've got time to consider them, I usually end up with at least four.

I think if we could filter out all of the "Craig's list" queries, and get to where the agent inbox doesn't look so overbearing, the query process might work as advertised.

I originally started this post with a bit about my personal experiences with querying. Deleted it. Everyone has battle scars.

The system is obviously flawed. It works for those who get through the gate. I liked the analogy above that said "that's like asking lotto winners if the lottery is a good way to make money".

As to another system... that's a tough one. I assume this system has evolved because it works for agents. It's fair for you to dictate how you want to receive information. But since you asked...

I have considered the Authonomy model for getting a work pubbed, but it has problems. Frankly, I don't have the time to devote to the level of participation it would require to get my book(s) voted to the top (because it seems to be participation and voting that determine the positioning of one's own work, rather than quality), plus I don't feel comfortable putting my whole (or even 95% of) my mss online.

The agent-for-a-day model though (referring to last year's NB query game)... Hmm, what if there was a website where writers submitted queries and <1000 words of the work. So instead of "Dear Mr. Bransford" it would be "Dear Community". Registered users could vote and leave a comment about why they would or would not want to read the rest of the book. The agent(s) could troll through it, see what was popular (and appealing to them, naturally), and if they saw something they liked, they could request more. Something like this would eliminate the feeling among writers that queries just go into a black hole, never to be seen (or replied to) again, they'd get feedback on why the book does or doesn't appeal, and they'd be given the opportunity to revise their query or even revise the book's premise based on user feedback.

Like any website, a lot of things would have to be worked out to make it fair, appealing, and workable, but anyway it's an idea.

Now that I'm thinking about the possibilities, I find myself planning the database structure in my head (sorry, I'm a geek programmer as well as a writer). I like the idea... if an agent or two would use it, we could make it happen.

I believe it works to a point, but I also think that agents can get certain ideas in their heads that may be flat out wrong. For instance, from what I read on AW I would get the impression that no one wants to see books that have elements of Tolkien in it, so I imagine many agents would ignore such queries. Yet, I believe there is a large fan-base out there that does want to read more Tolkienesque fantasy. I know I am one.

People seem to believe it is overdone, yet who has done it well besides Tolkien? Perhaps the first couple Shannara books by Terry Brooks and the Iron Tower trilogy by Dennis McKiernan, but that's about it as far as I can see.

I don't think it's fatally flawed, but I've got reservations.

First, there's numerical data suggesting it misses a lot. Jim C. Hines' survey on first novel sales shows that even in the '00s, nearly 30% of first books were sold straight to publishers. Some number were books where agents are less common (e.g. category romances), and other authors may never have tried querying agents at all, but we're looking, I think, at a fair percentage of published books that couldn't land an agent through a query. (Unknowable: how many perfectly fine unagented books failed to land a publisher, either?)

The second problem's structural and likely unavoidable. Any given genre's got what, 50-80 reputable and available agents repping it? If your request rate on fulls is a decent 10%, that's only 5-8 individuals making the final call on your book; if your work's tricky or on the bubble, maybe it's as few as 1-3.

Great work may get snapped up, but when that few people are making (admittedly educated) judgment calls within a flood of other queries, I see a lot of room for publishable work to slip through the cracks.

Last, I am suspicious of the one-page query (despite netting a partial from a one-pager I started querying two days ago). Some books sell on concept, but others sell on voice. On authority.

Even if great writers write well no matter the form, the one-page query is a filter between the agents' eyes and that novel's narrative authority, and will inevitably disinterest some agents who might have been grabbed by the book's particular voice. It isn't hard to tell when a book's got it; I trust an assessment of the first 5 pages (hell, the first paragraph) much more than for a description of that book, no matter how well-written.

So define "works." It self-evidently provides a living for a lot of good writers, agents, and editors, and readers with a lot of good books. But it seems like it's got a recognizable margin of error, too.

Melissa -
I can completely imagine authors writing great books but blah queries, because the author is passionate about the book they are writing, but often just dreading writing the query. That's how it is for my anyhow.

As a member of the *clears throat* authortariat, I think the query process does have its strengths. Within a few short paras, the agent can discover if the proposal might work and is something that might interest him or her and, also, if the writer has skills. I quite enjoy the challenge of composing queries now I'm more use to them. Can't think of a better system right now. A better system might be one where my work was snapped up and published and thoroughly enjoyed; however this is something I need to make happen, through increased self-confidence and positivity - not through trying different paths or doing more work.

Query is good.

I admire (and thank) the community of agents for allowing (and, in fact, encouraging) multiple submissions among agents at the query level.

New writers have no idea of what we used to go through and the huge amount of time that was wasted to get three agents OR publishers to pass on sample chapters and synopsis (let alone a complete Ms.) sent snail mail. That was a year or your life.

Alternatives?

Writing contests? Amazon.com's breakout novel contest has seen agents approaching a number of the runners up and several of these books are finding publication besides the one selected for AmazonEncore publication.

Another alternative is getting your work in front of an established author who will pass it along among publishing professionals (be it editors or agents). You don't want to know the truth why this doesn't work most of the time.

The blog frontier? Post your writing on a blog until someone notices it/you... and, uh, likes it. Longshot and best with non-fiction.

Self published, create huge sales, then seek representation?

What am I leaving out. Be really famous?

Pitch in person? Lots of travel expense but if you choose the right conferecnes the hotels are reasonable.

Get an mfa and hope an agent reads your master thesis in your college library? An mfa seems to be one of the most exspensive forms of self-publishing known today, especially if you throw in the cost of your undergraduate tuition.

Write a screenplay based on your novel and get it made into a hit TV series or movie?

Even if agents accepted full manuscripts, instead of queries, for submission for representation, they'd only read a page (or two, or less) for 90% of the stuff they'd get. The query process is a much more honest up-front system.

Kidnapping the next of kin of power agents and/or editors?

Okay, I vote query.

Ted Cross: I can completely imagine authors writing great books but blah queries, because the author is passionate about the book they are writing, but often just dreading writing the query. That's how it is for my anyhow.

There's a big hole in there somewhere, Ted. Screw your passion to the query hitching post, buck up, and get 'er done. And so on.

Nikki Hootman: Queries work swimmingly for plot-based books. They do not work so well for literary or character-based fiction.

Same could be said for publishing, actually.

What works for queries is a direct reflection of what works for the marketplace (assuming the agent is getting her/his clients publishing contracts and, uh, they seem to be doing just that).

I wouldn't really blame the query process for disliking or rejecting literary or character-based fiction, I would blame the publishers (or credit them, whichever).

Queries benefit agent and writer alike because it's the quickest way to learn whether it's a fit--or not.
One thing that will never change, there are only two eventualities: acceptance or rejection.

VIP: An agent knows in a split-second if the writer researches and is willing to follow guidelines.

You should have put in a third option "I don't know", for those people who are either doing the querying the process for the first time, or (like myself) return to it after a long hiatus.

I know when I did it the first time around, I was so bad that it really was hard to tell if it worked or not.

But, considering what I do for a day job, querying is a necessary evil. Just like a good cover letter and a knock out resume will get your foot in the door for an interview, a query must do the same thing.

And unlike how your first commenter (Richard Kriheli) states it, it's not considered brown nosing but simply sellig yourself to a head hunter for an industry that we all want to be part of but very few qualify to be in.

I think rather than send a query, the agent should require the first three pages. That would give the agent a better understanding of the book. Query letters can be very misleading and an agent might pass on an excellent novel and later regret it.

Umm, i'm not so sure but i like it!

J.S.

It works, there's no doubt about that. But is it the best system or can it be improved upon? That's a whole other issue.

I have an agent. My second. I had multiple offers in both instances. Yet I don't think the system works at all. And as a client, I REALLY resent the time it takes away from, well, me.

If you follow the threads on AW, for ex, you see something interesting-agents constantly turn down projects that you then see repped and sold. Some, quite well. As a matter of fact, some writer-friends and I were joking over one agency in particular who's notorious for it. If you look at the people reporting they'd been formed by them and counted how many had gone on to be published, you'd be shocked.

Donald M@ass even posted about how he got sick of hearing people he'd passed say they'd gone on, with his advice, to be published.

If you added up how many agents and time it takes a writer to get a yes, it's alarming. If you added up how many queries and time it takes an agent to find a marketable ms and make the correct call on the query, it's alarming.

Queries, via Internet in particular, don't work so great. They just don't. And agents' success rates with them, low. Writers' success rates with them, very low. And ohhhhh the time and energy wasted in the process.

Just because no one has yet come up with a better system doesn't mean one doesn't exist. It does. It just needs to be discovered. And if it were me, as an agent, I'd be looking REAL hard. Because it's not necessarily the smartest, most efficient way to do business.

I'm torn on this topic. Having just entered the query wars, I feel the whole process is incredibly daunting. I agonized over the pitch and the query and I'm frustrated that without it, no one will ever see the 2 years of serious, serious work I put into my manuscript. But I don't know what the alternative could be. I don't have any connections in the industry and I can't imagine trying to pitch my book in person as effectively and tightly as a query does.

I hope it works, because I've spent a lot of time reworking my query, researching agents, and so on. But it is mucho frustrating. I ranted about my past query fiascos on my blog today.

I think it works. I do like when an agent requests pages with the query -- 3, 5, 10, whatever, but something.

Of course, if there weren't so many writers with no respect for anyone but themselves, maybe we'd have a better chance of "fixing the system." Everyone here - obviously, we are taking the time to get to know an agent. But we are competing with lots and lots of people who just send mass queries out to anyone with an address. And they send them several times.

I've queried seven stories over the past nine years, and until the last two stories I never tweaked my query DURING the process. So far, I've tweaked my query seven times while querying agents.
Yes, I think the system works.
If you aren't getting bites, then there's a reason--re-evaluate the query and rework it. Oh, it could be due to the lack of agent/editor interest in that particular topic, but most likely it's the query.
--I DO like to paste the first page of my story since it gives the A/E the true 'voice' that I might not have been able to duplicate in the query.

Anonymous

I am still querying agents and only keeping ten out at any one time. I do think that the process of querying is rather like having a part time job where you pay your own expenses:-)

I think I may checkout Inkpop though.

Is the query process imperfect? Absolutely. Got a better idea?

Um...er...uh...

Writing is highly subjective. What one agent might dismiss as unvarnished crap, another agent might see as brilliant. You have to hope lightning strikes and the stars align.

But before we start complaining at how unfair it is, think about what it takes to get a job, for example. You have to be in the right place, at the right time, and strike people just the right way...and hope that you're the best candidate. (There's always someone better...you just have to hope they haven't applied for the job you want!)

It's the same thing with querying, really. You have to have the product, sure, but you also have to be able to find the right person to take it on, and impress that person with your query, synopsis and pages.

Now...would it be nice if it were standardized among agents? Absolutely. It'd be great if the association could come together on some guidelines and processes for everyone to follow. I ain't holding my breath.

It'd also be nice if agencies could invest in someone who could weed out the obvious crap. Let's face it...anyone with access to a computer could submit a query. Agents could devote more time to the well written queries if they could find a way to sift through the junk.

It is what it is. It's obviously worked for many good authors, even first timers. And until someone comes up with something better, it's all we have.

The answer to this question really lies in the question of whether or not the thousands of books filling the bookstores (and discount stores and e-stores...) are qualitatively better, more worthy books than the ones hiding in thousands of drawers and hard drives across the country. Probably not.

Consider the agent's job at this stage: assess the work for publishability and the author for professionalism. The best way to do that would be to read through the whole work and then interview the author.

For 300+, 250-page books a week (semi-informed stab at query incoming rate and book size), that's 75000 pages. Impossible.

So we shorten the process. For fiction, writing skill and plot are most important. For non-fiction, it's writing skill, organization and subject expertise. Instead of reading the whole book and interviewing the writer, take a look at a few sample pages, an outline and a note about qualifications and experience that might indicate a professional attitude.

Of course, some good stuff is missed because five pages doesn't showcase the writer's brilliance, and an outline doesn't convey the depth of the work.

But still, 300+ sets of 5 pages and 2-page outlines? Who's got time for that? (That's 2100 pages a week!)

So we speed things up further. We ask for the essentials combined in a single page. For fiction: a plot description. For non-fiction: a proposal indicating topic, approach and qualifications. Both of these need to give some indication of the writer's skill.

Yes, more stuff is missed.

But 300+ one-page summaries? That's something that can be read over lunch and after work and while brushing teeth... although we'll probably have to max out our free time to do it.

The number of manuscripts seeking representation is massive, and the market available for them comparatively tiny. To be absolutely certain every good book reaches the shelves we can increase the number of markets (the economics make market growth rare), decrease the number of manuscripts ('tis a consummation devoutly to be wished), or rely on the query system to reduce the task of finding good ones to something manageable.

Does the query system work? If you want it to give an agent a reasonable chance of finding marketable books without the time required for the search exceeding their lifespan, then yes. If you want it to ensure that all good books make it to the shelf and all bad books make it to the shredder, then no. If you want it to ensure that YOUR book makes it to the shelf, then... well, no. Sorry.

Margaret Yang also makes a great point. The back cover copy is different, though, in that it's (supposedly) written by a professional pitch writer, not the author.

Yes, I know Nathan@3:56 summed up my whole argument in 1/15th of the words. There's a lesson there, I think.

Ink, can I have that grocery list when you're done with it?

Since I haven't had any luck with people showing up at my house to request work, I still have faith in the query process and have to keep at it. Marketing is a whole nother skill set you have to develop if you ever hope of publishing. My wishes: (1) that there was some way to sort out the mass queries/queriers so that those who follow the rules have a chance of getting out of the query pile and (2) I respectfully wish that agents would say no to pitches at conferences if they're not interested so that we don't waste their time. At a conference two weeks ago, I constantly heard the excitement of those whose work was requested, as was mine, but I've been around enough to know that those requests are very common.

I would have to throw out a definitive SORT OF. I think 95% of the stories that manage to make it through the whole process deserve to, but would bet about 30% of the stories that DON'T are even better than a lot of those.

I think the process is conservative and uses a lot of rules, but I blame the publishing business model more than agents for that. I think there is just a lot of great literature that never sees the light of day because the process requires skills that a lot of great writers don't have.

It's not a perfect system but it's the best that we have. It's daunting, stressful, etc. but the whole publishing process is. I take it as part of the road to publication. It's not something I look forward to and I may get lost along the way, but it'll be worth it eventually.

I have to look at it in a positive light or I'd go crazy :P

To paraphrase Winston Churchill:

"The query process is the worst form of submission, except for all the others that have been tried."

The system is nothing short of painful and frustrating. But is there another way to do it? No! To ask you to sit down and read the whole book is insane. And sometimes the first few pages won't give a good taste for what the book is. Considering these, a query letter is the best chance a writer has. Which is sort of depressing, considering the number of rejections I've gotten already. But it's time to get more... If you'll excuse, I have a letter to try and write! ^_^

I voted yes, as I can't think of a better method yet. I remember the first time I got a full request from a query. My wife got excited and asked if it meant I was going to get published. I told her it more like sending in a resume online and being offered a first interview. Still a long way to go.

I imagine there could be some innovative ways to use the internet to help with the process. What about a site where people could all post the first 50 pages of their novel (but only complete novels should be allowed) under their specific genre (not just all lumped under, say, Fantasy, but under more specific labels such as YA Fantasy, Vampire, etc.

I would allow no commenting or voting or anything, and only legit agents should be allowed to interface with the pages. If perhaps 3 or 4 agents who do that genre all mark a manuscript as mediocre then it would drop off the site. This would allow agents to go to one place and look for what suits them and is good, while altogether filtering out the spam.

@Ted Cross: First off, I actually really love this idea. It's simple, concise, and not impossible at all!

If it were 3 or 4 agent rejections, I'd be dead by now. The agents would begin to overload the writers instead of the writers overloading the agents. 9 or 10 might be a safer bet.

I love the idea of first 50 pages- my story starts off fairly mild and really fires up around chapter 3- chapters 1 and 2 get the very basics of the world across. Without those basics, the rest can't make sense without clogging the action with explanation of things the reader should already know. The fact that the first couple chapters are a little calmer really causes problems when submitting, though.

I really mean, though, that only agents who do that particular genre would vote on the MS. Perhaps it would need more than just a few votes to drop off completely. I'm sure it would need tweaking, but why not a one-stop online shop for first-time authors to post their stuff (in a manner that protects their rights), and only real agents get to cull through and separate the wheat from the chaff?

OK now I've got my pithy remark out of the way - let's at least try and solve this.

Please - Follow the link and participate: http://forums.nathanbransford.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1285. Lets crack this thing!!!

Just to touch on something that's come up a bit: Agents workload.

Firstly, it's obvious it's a large part of the reason a query exists. But seriously, you CAN'T deal with this. It's impossible! Who is arbitrator of the right to send a book idea to an agent????? Get real!

AND the easiest way to increase this workload is to drop the query and just send pages. Everyone who has an MS has pages, not everyone has a query. If 1 in 10 are daunted by a query, and an agent gets 100 queries a day, remove queries and they now get 111 a day. *headdesk*

If nothing else this shows that an author is 1 in a few million. Whatever you apply to yourself to make it easier, you apply to millions of other people. Look up Emmanuel Kant's universal imperative and apply it to everything you want changed, because the consequences can easily be missed otherwise.

If it would be more helpful (and if I was an agent I'd be open to this) I would make the first couple pages of my novel available as an audio file. You could just listen whenever. I think that it would add convenience to some agents. Perhaps.

I said yes as far as getting people published. I think the query system puts decent books in the hands of agents.

That said, I think the industry falls down on marketing and selling. Otherwise we'd all be making a hell of a lot more money. And I have to say, there are a crap-load of BAD books out there. There are good ones, obviously, but too many bad ones to make me believe the industry doesn't still have some serious maturing to do.

From everything I can see, from watching and participating in the query process for several years now...it is not much better than selection by lottery. Good stories are picked up, or left behind, at random. Bad stories appear to get picked up at the same rate.

The query process works very well for the publishing industry, whose main concern is filtering some good out of the enormous torrent of submissions they receive. It's like a miner panning for gold -- they get enough to sustain themselves, but also a lot of silt, and the process also dumps a lot of gold back into the river. But it's the most cost effective method anyone can think of.

For authors the process is the worst thing imaginable. Rolling dice would be kinder.

Lots of people, btw, have mentioned sending pages. ALWAYS send the first five pages (just add it to the bottom of your email and mention in the query that they're there). Miss Snark even said to do it.

If the agent doesn't want it, then they don't have to read it. And seriously, if they're going to reject you on the bases of sending a few "unrequested" sample pages, then it's probably not someone I want to work with anyway. Agents are just people, too, remember, and they WANT to find fabulous writing.

Those pages get read, too. I've gotten comments on mine too often for it not to be true.

Remus - the dice analogy is perfect.

If you have a 10 sided dice, and you need to roll a 10 to get published, that's why you query multiple agents: to give you more chances to roll a 10

If you've only got a 6 sided dice, you never will

Nathan,

Well done you've got nearly as many 'followers' as me... and I can offr people nothing but words.


All My Best, Shane.

If I get an agent, I'll think it's a great system, if I don't, I'll think it sucks. ;-)

I think the query system is broken, overwhelmed by the tidal wave of queries. If you think it works, ask yourself if it would still work if the number of queries doubled from its current level (and the number of books purchased by publishers stayed the same.) Still working? OK, what if it doubled again?

I think a new model will emerge. One possibility would be for unpublished authors to post their completed MSs online (on their own websites or Scribd or Smashwords), and let agents find these works by referral from trusted readers. Those trusted readers could in turn be informed by casual readers. Validation of a work could bubble upward. An agent's interest might be piqued once 2000 or 3000 readers had commented on the work.

The agent could sign the author, help improve the book, and encourage the author to launch it as a $5 ebook on Smashwords. The author would be responsible for all marketing efforts (which is where the industry is heading anyway.) If the ebook sells reasonably well, the agent could try to sell the book and ebook rights to publishers.

Lots of potential issues and problems, but not necessarily worse than the status quo. And agents wouldn't have to process the huge percentage of queries that are instant rejections.

It works and it doesn't. The main problem I see is that for many authors, writing a good one is more difficult than writing the book. It's a different skill. I couldn't right a very good one. I also marketed it as the wrong type of story which hurt my chances as well. However, in the end, an editor saw it and liked the story and I got an agent (this agent) because of them. It only takes one, and I agree it's a very fallible process. Too many good books out there that can't be published. There just isn't shelf space for them. It's a very tricky thing indeed to be compelling in half a page of writing.

I would have said yes yesterday, but that was before I got back the requested partial of my romantic suspense novel with a personalized rejection letter saying "We don't represent nonfiction." This is a wild-ride adventure story with a high body count. Anybody who suspected it was remotely true should have called the police, not just sent a rejection.

It's not the first time I've had a rejection that makes it obvious nobody's read my submission--usually a requested partial rather than an initial query--but the system does seem to be too overloaded to work. Is there another one that would work better? I haven't the foggiest.

anne-

I'm sure it was a failure in the reply, not that no one read it. On the flip-side, I request plenty of partials from people who wildly misspell my name.

I queried an agent who used a form; the form asked some interesting questions I never would have included in a query: favorite line from my manuscript, what writer influenced me the most, and so on. At first I was intimidated, but then I saw how I could make the form work to my advantage. (The agent also requested a query and opening pages.)

If I were an agent, I'd take this approach, too--ask some questions that would help me understand the writer and his or her work a little better, things a query and/or the first opening pages might not reveal. I think a lot of good work slips through the cracks because it doesn't fit into the query/first five pages mold.

The query process would work if the literary agents handle the process in a professional and structured manner. What writer will send in a query thinking it might become fodder for a mass joke? It certainly gives pause for thought.

Having said that, literary agents need to be intuitive. They need to look past the structure of the query and determine if the content of the described project will interest the public. The rest is all nonsense.

It would be like a comic "selling" his set to a booker. Shut up with the well-honed pitch already and let's hear the meat: the material.

This would be a great query:
"My book: How a great manicure cured my fear of sex. Literary agent, are you interested in seeing more of my memoir?"

You do not need more than a one-pitch line. 'Nuff said.

I would like to take issue with this claim I see a lot: that a writer should not have to be good at writing a query, because writers aren't salespeople, and therefore queries are a bad method for finding agents. I completely disagree. As writers, we are salespeople to the core. If we write fiction, we need to sell readers on an entire cast of characters, plot, and often a new world; convincing them they want to read on and making the above items believable.

In fact, they need to be so believable that readers will knowingly choose to care about people and events that they know for a fact are fictional. We have to do that using only words. If that does not require good sales ability, I don't know what does.

It is even true for nonfiction; we need to present things in an exciting way that says: this matters.

For a good book by a good writer, the query should be a simple afterthought. A matter of learning the format and just fitting it to the book. If I were an agent, I would be concerned if an author couldn't create the tension and present the conflict and relatable main character in a few paragraphs, or summarize their book in a synposis. I would expect the author to be so excited by their story and character that they can easily show what makes their book special in a few words.

If I saw that an author used the excuse that "writers are not salespeople" to explain a poor query, I would lose interest and wonder how they missed this very basic truth: Writers are nothing but salespeople who use the written word to convince readers of something. I think convincing a reader that an entire imaginary story is worth hours of their time; worth shutting out the real world--that takes more sales ability and convincing than selling used cars by a long shot. So don't say we aren't salespeople.


Just my two cents.

There is no way to have a perfect system on a subjective process. I don't envy agents having to scan through the mass of queries, but it's no fun being a writer being scanned over either. I read books all the time that I can't believe made it to publishing when I know there are great works out there being overlooked because writers don't like to market themselves or they haven't found a way to spark an agent's interest.

If I were an agent, I'd go for an online submission to weed out form queries. I'd ask questions about genre with specific instructions about what I was interested in and what I wouldn't read. I'd ask if the ms has been critiqued to encourage first-time authors to edit and get feedback. I'd ask what books writers read during the process or influenced them to see if they are serious about improving their craft and what style they are aiming to achieve. I'd ask if they saw their work as literary or commercial, plot-driven or character driven which isn't something you can tell from a blurb. I saw an online submission form that asked for a favorite sentence; I liked that. I'm sure as an agent you could come up with other things that you can't find out from a query but are nonetheless important and then include a small space for experience and blurb. More than anything, I'd want to see those first 5 pages. You can get a better feel for a writer's ability to write by reading the first paragraph of an ms than you can from a query.

Lavender:
You wrote at the end of your comment: "Just my two cents." I hate seeing that at the end of anything. It seems so darn apologetic. You should be strong and confident in your opinion. It is interesting. I think you should lose that expression, "just my two cents."

Marjorie, it has absolutely nothing to do with a lack of confidence with one self when you sign "my 2 cents".

It's simply a humble way of saying "in my opinion" so you don't sound like an arrogant ass,

Marjorie,

I agree with Francis in this case, haha. Thank you for your support though. My point in adding that "my two cents" was to clarify I know not everyone will agree with me, nor am I claiming to be 100% right. Also, that I am not brushing off the thought and work many people put into queries at all--I know that is not always easy. I simply think that the reason some people give for disliking them (about "sales") is incorrect; since sales is about convincing people of ideas, and so is writing fiction.

I don't think the querying process works as well as it could. It is the quality of the manuscript that matters in the end, and adding a query letter on top only makes it more difficult to get the manuscript evaluated. How many good books get missed because some arbitrary thing in the query wasn't up to snuff?

But at the same time, there is no feasible way a publisher or agent can read as many manuscripts as people send them. So the query process was meant to make things more efficient.

I think the best solution is for publishers (and maybe agents... I'm not sure if it is a good idea for them yet...) to hire sub-editors who are trained to critically evaluate manuscripts. Then then search through the slush pile and hand over the cream of the crop to the editors, who end up with much less junk to sift through. But why would they add the expense of pre-readers? By requiring the submitting author to pay for the service. Perhaps a payment of $40 or so with every submission. Not only would it keep many people who aren't as serious or professional from submitting, but even in the unlikely event a screener spent an hour on each manuscript, it would be profitable ($40 an hour? To read? Sign me up!) The publisher doesn't lose any money, nothing good is as likely to slip through the cracks, and the editor has more time.

As an author, the only way I would accept paying that money is if I got some type of evaluation back. For a work I've spent a year writing, doing my best to make perfect, I'd pay $40 a few times over for someone to give their honest feedback on sample chapters. But the way it works now, I have to rely on friends (not too reliable), online critiques (can't really trust them), pay a book doctor ($40 is ok. $4000 is not), or hope that the editor gives a good critique back with a rejection... which due to the fact that they are busy reading too many queries just won't happen.

So that's my dream world. Authors pay for the time to get their book reviewed. Everybody wins, and it eliminates the frustration that an author just can't get their foot in the door.

Well, if she wrote it I know it is her opinion. I do not conclude that somebody stating a strong opinion is an "arrogant ass." I think that would only be the case if a person was trying to convince others that his opinion is the correct opinion. It's not a debate. Everybody weighs in.

When I read "just my two cents," it sounded apologetic, not humble. There is no right or wrong with opinions. So, what Lavender had to say is interesting to me, even though I disagree. And I was disappointed with that cliche, "just my two cents." It's not worth two cents, it is worth more.

I hate that expression.

I don't believe sending a query on its own works. Why? It's not the story, no matter how well it's written.
A page stating genre, word length and author details is all that should be required, along with 1st 3 chapters.
An agent can tell if it's good or not, so may reject after the first page on some; may find themselves at the end of chapter three - wishing they had more - with others.
This system would not require more reading, as the agents would only continue reading if the story grabbed them.
This would work much better, I think. Let the writing sell itself.

Works about as well as my car used to work with a clogged fuel filter. It would run - sort of - as long as you were doing low-speed driving around town with plenty of stops to keep the carb resevoir reasonably full. But try to take it on the highway and you would burn gas faster than it could be delivered to the carb, and you would stall out - repeatedly - and need to restart every time. Not good!

With some care it was possible to sustain a speed of abour 45 mph on back roads.

Did this car "work?"

You tell me.

-Steve

If an author does his or her research before querying, I think the system works. I did for me. 5 targeted queries netted me an agent within a week; we placed with Penguin quickly thereafter. And it was my first book.

How about requiring writers to submit their queries via a Google Search Story?

Byrne Risk Google Story Query

You'd have no idea if they could write, but you in only 35 seconds you would get the essential info, a feel for the tone of the book, and some idea if the writer can tell a story.

It's archaic. Sure, when manuscripts were mailed in boxes or big, brown envelopes, the query letter cut down on the mass of the slush pile. A good query letter even got you a ticket to bypass the slush pile and get your story right onto the desk of the agent or editor. Now, a full novel can be attached to an email. Nothing to mail. Nothing to store. Nothing to haul around the office. You open the attachment (after scanning it for viruses, of course) and read until you can't stop or can't stand to go on. No good book will need to go unpublished simply because its author couldn't write a catchy enough query (or made the un-pardonable mistake of having not read the biography of every agent on Earth before submitting one). For all the bitching that agents do about the query process, you'd think they would have done away with them by now. How many times have I heard the complaint that a wannabe author got your name wrong, or submitted to "Dear Agent", or didn't know that you were only considering werewolf love stories this month and submitted a zombie comedy to you in strict violation of your submission guidelines.

Every agent in the world ought to have the following as standard submission guidelines without exception:
1. Write a good story really really well.
2. Polish, edit and revise it until it gleams.
3. email it to me in MSWord format.
4. There is no 4.
So, stop being afraid to open attachments. Invest in a decent anti-virus package, and read the submissions already.

I believe the query process works. It is how the majority of books reach publication, BUT it only works if it is done properly. First off, many debut authors don't even know how to write a query and just spit something else, or just send the whole manuscript, or whatever. Obviously that does not work. Then there are the ones who have an idea of what a query letter is BUT STILL do it wrong by sending mass letters, letters with the wrong info in it, letters that do not specify wordcount or genre, etc. Also, every agent is different. Some want a synopisis, some want a sample chapter(s)/pages. So many authors do not take the time to find out the needs of each individual agent, and just copies/pastes their query into a new e-mail, changes the name, and ships it off. Changing "Dear Smith" to "Dear Brown" is not all that personal. By studying the agents website, a querying author will find all the needs of that agent. If we all followed this process, there would be alot more success.

While on the subject of queries…
I have some books from a few years back that suggest that in a query, or possibly a synopsis, I need to include who my market is. Who will buy my book and why. Things I’ve read more recently don’t mention this at all. Is that something that is a thing of the past or should it only be used for non-fiction?

I think it plays a role in the process of publication, but I don't think it should be considered the end-all to having your work read & or published. As it can be too selective as it depends on what they think the market will bear thereby eliminating some great work.

I also think the work should speak for itself.

This is "like" the third posting in which I have found myself wondering if Nathan were being discriminatory towards older persons.

At first, I thought it was my imagination, but now, I am really beginning to wonder.

In my experience, the real offenders who overuse quotation marks have been teenagers, who are trying to stress something, or “snarky” adults.

I mean, really, Nathan, even if your observation is unbiased, is it necessary to point out age groups to broach a subject or a pet peeve? Why risk giving the wrong impression? Specifically, why did you feel it was necessary to “brand” the over fifty crowd as the offenders? What was the point of that?

I’ve noticed this “oddity” before and I’ve “let it ride”, but really, I feel compelled to ask: “why do you make it about age”? I think the overuse of quotation marks crosses all age groups.

For the record: I am not over fifty. In fact, I'm not "that much" older than you.

Yes, you "got" me. I "hate" old people. "Hate" them, including my "parents," my older "colleagues" and everyone in the "AARP."

Well "spotted," anon.

Interesting discussion.

I just ignore this one because it doesn't usually happen in speech. And, I think, it's forgiveable for a variety of reasons. Unless, of course, the person doing it is querying an agent. Writers should know better.

What really bothers me are some of the huge grammatical errors I hear in speech on a daily basis (I myself..me and my friend). All you have to do it watch a reality show like "Big Brother" and the mistakes just flow from the mouths of people who think they know it all. And, unfortunately, they come from my generation, usually from people under thirty.

What are they teaching in grade schools these days during English class?

See? You're both stressing a point and being snarky, and you're nowhere near fifty.

And it "wasn't" even on "purpose." Nope. "Not at all."

Well, I'm under 30, and I have a degree in education. I can tell you that there is not much grammar instruction in schools these days.

In fact, most teachers are as confused about the rules of grammar as their students are. Heck, I was never taught grammar until college... It is a scary, scary world out there!

I'm trying to start a sentence diagramming revolution. If you want to join me, see my site. (English Grammar Revolution)

:) Elizabeth

http://www.english-grammar-revolution.com

Can anyone tell me what is proper to show someone stops talking mid-sentence?

Anon 1:27,

If they trail off... (ellipses works)

If they stop abruptly- (a dash usually does the trick)

Thanks, Bryan "Ink", that's what I had been doing, but after todays discussion I wasn't sure if that was the correct way to do it.

You're a really sweet and knowledgable guy.

Nathan,

How do you know how old your query writers are? I've never put my age in a letter. Do others?

Crap, I spelled Knowledgeable wrong!

anon-

It's often clear from the bio. I don't recommend saying your exact age in a query, but I have a sense of the author's age in at least half of the queries I get.

And in all honest, I don't think this is me being ageist or something. It's just something I've noticed. As others mentioned, young people have their own set of grammar/punctuation issues and are much more likely to mess up it's/its.

Nathan,

I'm not the same ANON that asked you that. I think there are at least three ANONS here. I just wondered about the age, because I've never included that and wondered if I was doing something wrong.

There could be dozens of different anons or more at any given time.
We really are not all the same anon.

Nope, there was no golden age of quotations that I remember. I am an old hippie chick from the 60s who taught English. None of my commrades use random quotation marks for emphasis. Underscores, yes! Exclamation marks? Too often. But not quotation marks. I understood quotation marks placed around words not part of dialog indicated irony. In your example of "fresh" mozarella cheese, I think the quotations marks mean "not so fresh".

I can't possibly read 182 comments so I have no idea if I'm simply repeating information, but quotation marks are not needed for obvious irony or euphemism. In fact, quotation marks are rarely needed, except to indicate direct quotes and certain types of titles (chapters, short stories, songs, short poems, episode titles, journal articles).

I'm not sure why people don't understand quotation marks, but it is not just bloggers who have trouble. Most manuscripts that cross my desk are in serious need of a quotation mark diet.

I find absolutely no age difference.

You continue to inform and educate in a most generous and accessible manner. Have only recently joined this blog and am blown away by your efforts

Heh, I only use quotation marks for emphasis on blogs and forums, because I am to lazy too highlight the text and click the "i" icon or insert the html code for italics. And that points out the other use of quotation marks to make it clear that I am speaking about a specific symbol or operation. If I were doing it properly, it would read: click the i icon ...

I've never seen it used as other's have mentioned.

It had certainly been interesting following this thread. I am now so "unsure" of myself I can't write anything without looking it up. Nathan-- let's discuss em-dashes next! "Just for fun."

Quotation marks for emphasis have never been correct. I'm old enough to be your mother, Nathan, I'm a copyeditor, and I know. What I don't know is how that ridiculous usage got started. Nor can I explain why people use apostrophes for plurals--also commonly seen in grocery store signs.

And finally, before I get off my high horse, where did people get the idea that an objective pronoun becomes subjective if it's part of a compound object (e.g. "She taught my friend and I how to use quotation marks properly")? No one would ever say "She taught I," so why say "She taught my friend and I"? Grammar is just logic, people.

I know I'm a little late in the game here, but I have a (completely untested) theory about the quotation-marks/generational-debate.

As an editor, I've seen quotation marks misused by people of various ages, but when I see them misused by people over 50 or so, it tends to be a very specific type of "error." ;-)

Quotation marks are (correctly) used to denote slang terms that the reader may not be familiar with. (See http://www1.umn.edu/urelate/style/italics.html or Chicago Manual of Style 7.60). However, some writers have fallen into the habit of using quotation marks around any slang term, even those that are common knowledge, almost as a way of saying, "I want you to know that I know this isn't quite formal/proper English." Thus the quote marks around "Mom" (because it's not mother) and possibly the quote marks around "Love" (because it's not Sincerely?). Eventually, anything that's slightly informal/intimate gets quote marks ("thanks" vs. thank-you, "TV" vs. television, "fridge" vs. refrigerator etc.).

Younger writers don't seem to differentiate between formal and informal English, so they aren't as likely to put quote marks around slang phrases. (This certainly doesn't keep them from misusing quotation marks; they simply seem more likely to use them for incorrect emphasis than for common slang/informal phrases.)

I admit that this doesn't cover all the quotation mark errors of everyone's mother/grandmother (or unmentioned-male-card-writing-relative), but it's a start. Thoughts?

"Yes"

As someone over the age of 50, I have to say I resent the implication that I am more prone to misuse quotation marks.

In the olden days, I had a wonderful teacher who explained the proper use of this punctuations thusly: What does the newspaper headline 'Mayor Leaves Hotel with "Wife"' say to you? Use your quotation marks accordingly.

I never forgot that lesson.

Within a piece of literary art, I think things shouldn't stray from current grammar rules.

But in a *darling* little blog such as this and during _friendly_ repartee, "anything" goes.

:)
G.

Whenever I see quotations, it makes me think they are being sarcastic.

Yes. I work at a library and at our district, and many of the surrounding districts, the adult and teen summer reading programs apply for both books and audio books. We tell our patrons that if they listen to an audio book while on their car trip, it counts as reading (for everyone sitting in the car) and they can mark off the hours to get a prize.

Kimber An,

I don't think those who are saying listening to an audiobook is not reading are being disrespectful. Nor have I really heard anyone say that it's a less valid way of experiencing the story, just that it's different.

As much as I'd like to count all those audiobooks that I've listened to as "books I've read," I can't.

It's not READING.

My 3-year-old triplets look at books all the time, they absorb the pictures, they even understand the story, but they don't actually read the words. Therefore they haven't actually read the book.

It's different with braille, though. As Nathan aptly pointed out, a person reading braille is literally reading the words, they just happen to be in a different language. But that person is still doing the reading.

Now, I wouldn't say that listening to an audiobook is on an equal interaction level as watching a movie adaptation of a novel, but I don't think you can call either one of those activities "reading," no matter how much more or less you get from your listening to an audiobook, it just isn't the same thing as digesting the words with your own eyes. Totally different physical processes going on.

MeganRebekah,

I think that IS the question. By asking whether audiobook listening is reading or not, the question is really asking what is reading? It's sort of the implied question riding shotgun. And the answers are interesting because they show how different people experience and define the process.

My best,
Ink

I love a book in my hands. I love to let my imagination fly with words. BUT I also love to hear a story, and I will listen to audiobooks to fall asleep just like a little kid. I find that hearing the words can make me "see" author word choices in fresh ways.

P.S. I should have added that if the reader of an audiobook has a style that bothers me, it can destroy the book for me, so that is an issue.

Love the blog, new to posting ... but for what it's worth: vision impaired folks who rely on audiobooks to enjoy literature, escape into unknown worlds and acquire knowledge might argue that "reading" does not require words to go into one eye and out the other.

Jen P

Thanks for the response to my question. I already have an agent. He submitted my manuscript to six houses...I was wondering whether there was an average wait time a writer can expect to endure before the publishing house gives any kind of response (offer or reject).

Do you know of any posting on that? I've searched everywhere!

Step one: Read Shakespeare. Step two see Shakespeare performed. That first step took a little more gray matter, didn't it?

Being read to removes a good deal of what little the reader brings to the table, where, for the most part, the meal is already all laid out.

Have we forgotten the difference between audio and visual? You may be enjoying a book by listening to it, but you are not performing the act of reading.

Listening to a book will give you the story, may be enjoyable, but you are the listener, using your audio skills. It does not improve your reading ability.

Readin the words and seeing the visual representation of the story is, obviously, visual

That doesn't make one right or wrong, or better. Besides, story telling started out as verbal speech.

Either way, your getting a story. Hopefully, it's a good one.

I agree with Dawn and McLean - listening to an audiobook is an experience, but it's not the same as reading the book yourself. If it were, then listening to an old-time radio program (like a Sam Spade mystery) would be equivalent to reading the book/play on one's own.

Now, I have nothing against audiobooks - the hubby and I have listened to many a James Lee Burke mystery while on our long road trips. But it's simply not the same as reading his books on my own... for two important reasons: 1) Someone else is, in fact, doing the work for you - i.e., telling you the story (ofte using a variety of voices). 2) Audiobooks often are abridged versions of the real books. Otherwise, they'd be 16 hours long like Matthew Pearl's THE POE SHADOW!

Good question though!

I'm pretty sure my kids' reading teacher wouldn't buy it, anymore than my husband's 6th grade teacher bought the story about his favorite part of "Tale of Two Cities" being the beginning when the guillotine fell. ;)

Definitely - in some ways, an audiobook is even more critical for judging writing quality - particularly for MG, YA b/c these are books that are more frequently read aloud. For more literary fiction, the visual metric may be more important, but I feel like I've learned more about writing via audiobooks.

Listening to the cadence of a story being told well can teach a writer a lot about pacing and drawing out suspense. I've read all the Harry Potters at least twice, and listened to the the audio versions as well - excellent. They forced me to slow down and listen to every description - things I might have rushed over in a second or third reading because I already knew them.

Absolutely -- 100% -- yes!! It's not about seeing words on a page, it's about absorbing the content. In fact, reading may be a lot more about listening that seeing.

If you don't think an audio book is a book, do you consider the blind illiterate?
I've done some recordings for the blind, including the Georgia Driver's Manual (think about THAT) and I have to say that I think Audio books are books, just as much as e-books are

I'd say it wasn't technically reading, but if I had listened to an audiobook I would say that I had 'read' that book. So, yes!

I've never actually listened to an audio book. But I voted yes.

I would say yes because saying no would probably piss off a lot of visually impaired people who choose this option over braille.

This topic is something I have considered far more than the average reader. I am dyslexic and my reading skills have always trailed far behind me thinking skills. I didn’t come to a place where I could confidently call myself literate until I was in my twenties. Fortunately, I was introduced to audio books very early and have listened to everything from college textbooks, to classic literature, to popular best sellers in audio version. In my lifetime I have probably listed to at least 20 or 30 times as many books as I have read.

Listening because I am unable to read does make it harder for me to claim I have “read” all the books I have heard. But I have heard them, which has to count for something. While brail books exist, most people with visual impairments listen to their literature. I can’t find any justification in tell a blind person who loves listening to audio books that they haven’t read anything. So why should a sighted person be chastised either?

I am now at a place in my life where I can read, and spend a lot of time doing it. Still I listen to twice as many books as I read – mainly because it takes less time. I read pretty slow, but also I’ve found it’s a lot easier to multi-task will listening than it is to multi-task while reading.

I actually think it’s sad that so few literate people do listen to books. Think of all the time you waist driving in cars, cleaning your house, working in your yard, etc when you could easily have an audio book chirping away in your ears.

To me, only if you can no longer read. My mother-in-law lost her site a few years ago, and that's her only option.

If I'm riding in a car, I don't mind listening to someone else read to me.

But for me, it doesn't count as me reading it. I won't let my nine-year-old get away with counting books read to him in school, or he'd let someone always read it for him. Less work. But where do you gain your skills if you don't do the work yourself?

I want to raise literate children. That comes through reading the words and gaining an understanding. Not through listening.

However, the little ones follow along as I read to them. :)

Depends on why you need to read. If you need to know the information, I'd say sure. If reading is an assignment for a class to get you comfortable with the written word -- no.

I have a friend who had to have audio textbooks in college and I wouldn't have held her need against her as long as she could absorb the material enough to pass the tests, but for my 6 year old learning-to-read daughter? Listening is no where near the same as reading.

I almost never listen to audio books though. My free time for it would be in the car, but when I read I sink into the story so much that people have trouble getting my attention. I'd be afraid to try listening and driving to see which one got the most thought.

I am an audiobook junkie. I still read about one NF and one novel at a time, but when I'm in the car there's always an audiobook going. I don't love to read for reading's sake. I want the stories, the info, the knowledge. Sometimes I feel obligated to read certain books I could care less about and will fall asleep through unless they are spoken on CD. If you're a fan, I recommend audiobookworm.com, kind of a Netflix for books on CD.

There is the issue with audiobook abridgment but they abridge books so as long as you're up front about that, I don't see why it shouldn't count. In fact, I think it can bring a lot to the experience. I still can't read Outlander without hearing the narrator's voice as I was first exposed to the book through its audiobook.

I don't think its reading and I don't think if you listened to an audio book that you have 'read' the book. You listened to it and maybe you got the essence of the story or whatever the author intended but you didn't read it.

The person that read it to you is putting their own inflection and spin on the story and dialogue that would be different if you were reading it. Besides the fact that when you listen to an audio book your full attention is not on it like it would be if you were reading. I can retell a book verbatim. I have forced my husband to sit while I fill him in on every detail of a story. He could then retell it to anyone else but I don't think he would claim that he had read it. He might.....but it wouldn't be true.

And being blind and reading braille is not a choice. One sense has been taken away and the brain will process reading braille just as it would if they were seeing the words. Not the same as listening! I am sure its very enjoyable and I have nothing against it at all but it just isn't reading.

does reading a play count as experiencing the play? My vote is that it is a different experience but no less valid.

Never abridgments!
I read 2 audiobooks a week. I don't know how to drive, walk, or clean a kitchen without a book in my ear.
Of course the narrator makes a difference. I think I can tell when it enhances or detracts from the book.
Curse of the Blue Tattoo and The Help are enhanced.

Story started aurally.....the written word came long after.

Yes! Why? For many reasons. Two years ago my first (and only) audio book for kids was published. It is now being read aloud to children at school, at home, in the car, at events. To kids with dyslexia, book-allergies or book-phobia. To the visually incapacitated or blind, the elderly and even the too-busy-to-read-but-not-to-listen ones. So, is the message getting through? Absolutely. And especially because it is for kids, because if they can't discover the thrill of well told tales, they miss a basic link there for later - when the pleasure of reading is not only found in a book, but in the process of understanding and enjoying the content of a story.

I think a written narrative is by convention, at least, far more formal than one spoken. Though certainly it's a close thing, I don't think most of us speak and hear with the same formality of the written word, and as such we've not learned to process information the same way when hearing it as when reading it.

The additional aspect of being able to dictate one's own pace when reading as opposed to being dictated to via an audio book makes the resulting experience of a good book - particularly the more thought provoking types - considerably different in either media.

Though in most respects I think it's a close thing, I voted no, and was then delighted to see how close opinions are on the matter.

I will abstain from voting on this one because I can't decide. I have listened to one audiobook in my life and I still have a hard time saying that I read the book. I usually have to clarify that I listened to the audiobook. So, maybe the audiobook experience is slightly different, but very similar to reading.

Yes, audiobooks count as reading. The book is the same, it is just the method of delivery. Imagine a person who is blind, or has a learning disability, is older, or....

What measurable outcomes do you want? Could they answer questions for a quiz or a book report? Could they tell someone else the story?

In court decisions under IDEA (Individual with Disabilities Education Act) it has been decided that on the state standardized tests, books, questions... readers or tape recordings are allowed to be used EXCEPT for the "test of reading skills" part of the test. That makes sense because "reading" is what the test is trying to measure.

Damn. As soon as I clicked one response I promptly changed my mind. I dunno.

I find this all fascinating. I don't think anyone who says "it's not reading" is denying the validity of books on tape (or CD) my husband and I listen to books on tape almost every night. We are also avid readers.

When I am listening to a story I am not reading it. I am enjoying the experience of being told a story. I enjoy stories or I wouldn't read or listen to them.

Having an impairment that makes reading hard to impossible, makes the listening experience that much more enjoyable and meaningful.

If I'm listening to music am I reading it? No, I'm enjoying the creation of an artist as played by the musician. Does it mean I can't appreciate the music simply because I'm not reading it? No.

I wonder if Nathan meant this to become a discussion of whether or not listening to a book is valid?

There's no question it's valid. Just a different way to enjoy the story.

PS I think reading in braille is still reading. Its a tactile version but still requires the putting together of letters to form the correct words and not having someone else do it for you...

I'm not going to vote because I can't vote yes or no without qualifying my answer. Yes, it counts as reading *if* you are not teaching or attending grade school. Yes, it counts if you are visually impaired (or for that matter, have an auditory deficiency and then that would even out the score because that means you have to *listen* harder, right?). No if you're an editor (come on, that was obvious, right?), proofreader or beta reader. And, um, why would anyone be "counting" other than to record your minutes on that fantastic chart complete with gold, green, blue and silver star stickers? So there. Count that. :P

Sarcastically yours,
Kathie

Interesting comments on both sides. Alas, I suspect that this will become a mainly semantic debate owing to the phrasing of Nathan's question. While the experience of listening to an audiobook cannot be identical to the experience of reading the same book, since the former is narrated by a third party, I would argue it can certainly be equivalent.

I'm going to put aside the example of people with visual impairments or conditions that make reading difficult or impossible. Not only have others expounded upon this point at length, but it's not as pertinent to Nathan's question--in order to compare the two experiences, listening and reading, and judge them equivalent or not, we must start with a person equally capable of both. If that is not the case, then obviously someone more capable of listening to a book than reading it will judge the former experience superior to the latter.

Those who claim listening to an audiobook can't be equivalent to reading the same book argue that the presence of the narrator changes the meaning of the book, acting as a filter through which the text passes before it reaches our ears. Yet any book's text passes through innumerable filters before reaching our eyes. Consider two editions of the same book, with the exact same text, yet bound differently. A hardcover book may be read differently than a paperback book. The size of the text may make one's eyes skip ahead or crawl along slowly.

Furthermore, by the same logic, does this mean that translated books do not count as reading material? After all, those books have been filtered by a third party as well, just a narrator instead of a translator. And that translator has to make judgement calls when rendering idioms or concepts that don't translate directly. As anyone who has ever plodded through ancient tracts or even something in Old English, like Beowulf, can testify, the translation makes all the difference. In fact, a translated book is probably more filtered from the original than an unabridged audiobook could ever be.

The other objection is that a narrator can't capture the nuance of the written word--particularly punctuation (Rick Daley mentioned this). This is backwards. We, as a species, are wired for spoken language. Prior to the invention of the written word, oration was the only form of storytelling, through which we preserved our history and our culture. Punctuation exists as a way of transcribing oral elocution, not the other way around. Hence, a good narrator will be able to pronounce a book as it is written. And that's the rub--an audiobook's experience hinges upon the skill of its narrator. A poor narrator can ruin an audiobook, while a good narrator can make it come alive.

I've begun listening to audiobooks while I bike to work this summer, instead of listening to music as I usually do. I find some books easier to understand orally--Victorian writing, for instance, with its very formal language. Yes, it's easy to be distracted by an audiobook. Then again, it's also easy to be distracted by a regular book. Both require concentration and perseverance.

Listening to an audiobook isn't technically reading, no. Yet while one's mileage may vary, I maintain that listening to an audiobook is equivalent to reading the same book, assuming one devotes an equivalent amount of concentration. Those who listen to books because they think it's "quick and easy" compared to reading are fooling themselves, because they're missing the point--any form of reading requires effort. However, it is possible to listen to an audiobook and come away with a solid understanding of the story, a grasp of its themes. A good book, or a good audiobook, it doesn't matter--both can move me.

I don't have anything against audio books, but if you're listening to one then I'm afraid you're listening, not reading. Saying that listening is reading is kinda like saying that if you smell the book then you're reading it. It's two completely different senses. But perhaps I'm being too slavish to the three question form...

PS Welcome back Nathan!

PPS I'm a little quiet lately because I've finished the first draft of my book and I'm like SO obsessed with editing it. I think I forgot to eat and breathe yesterday I've been so caught up with it.

PPPS I hate Blogger. Why won't you let me post?!?! (A million dollars says it lets me post this time just to be a pain...)

I think it counts as taking in a story....kinda like a movie. And I totally do it just to hear the story so I won't be in the dark, but I don't count it as reading.

Reading makes me fall asleep because it requires sitting my tired self down. Audiobooks, not so much.

if you are listening to a tv show, doesn't that count as reading the script?

Hell no it doesn't.

On the glorious day that I become a published author, there is no way I'd turn my nose up to people who bought my book in the audio version over the print. I'm going to be happy with however my story is enjoyed!
I enjoy books both ways. When I have a long drive, audio books work very well. In my office at work, they help me pass the day. But when I curl up in bed, or on a long flight, nothing beats a nice print book.

We listen to books on tape as a family but my children have to READ a book in order to learn the nuances of words and word structure.
I personally would rather READ a book. I love the feel of the pages in my hands and knowing how far I am into a book or how close to the end.
I also LISTEN to audiobooks while driving.

I vote yes.

I have a child who struggles with reading for some reason or another, but she's an amazing listener. She loves good literature and absorbs what I read to her and what she hears in an audiobook.

Okay, yeah, it's not *reading*, but she is taking in wonderful stories by great writers.

I am of two thoughts on this question. On one hand do you have an impairment that cannot allow you to read? I.E. Are you blind?

If so, then yes this would count as reading.

If no, then no it does not count as reading. You are not really exercising your brain you are just tuning into a pictureless tv. The same as listening to a radio.

To assume that an audiobook doesn't count is to call the basis of all literature into question: what is the storyteller but an early audiobook? Would we discount Beowulf as literature if it was delivered in the traditional manner with a drum accompaniement?
Whether the story is taken in by the eyes or the ears, it is still consumed by the brain!

I don't think anyone was saying that audio books are not a legitimate form of absorbing a story or turning up their nose at them(but I haven't read all the comments so I could be wrong).

The question wasn't about the legitimacy of audiobooks, from what I understood. It was asking whether listening to one is reading. Or maybe I can't read, myself, and I have the question all wrong.

I count listening as reading because some of us, with old eyes, have to conserve our sight for work. After a day in front of a computer, curling up with a book means falling asleep in fifteen minutes.

Audio books are definitely a different experience from reading. They're being tucked in bed to Grimm's Fairtales. They're sitting around a fire listening to the old story teller. They're total immersion.

I download my books to my iPod and listen with my ear buds. The world fades, especially with the right reader. The Anansi Boys, read by Lenny Henry took me away for 10 hours as completely as any book I've ever held in my hands.

I do miss curling around a heavy, hardbound book in my arms, but there's a lot to be said for curling up and simply drifting away.

No. That is being read to - not reading. It's a good way to enjoy a book if you spend time commuting. But when you read, you set the pace. The emphasis you give parts affects what your brain invisions. It's just not the same!

Aaaaand, Victoria Dixon wins. Thanx to everyone else for playing.

Since I get motion sick, it's the only way I can "read" on a plane or in a car and therefore, it counts.

I think that the brain relies pretty heavily on Broca's area (left, frontal lobe) for comprehension of language, regardless of format. So really, your brain is pretty much doing the same thing (taking syllables and creating meaning) whether you read it or it's read to you. So I tend to think of listening to a book as 'reading' just as much as actually reading it. I find listening to a book much more annoying than reading it, though. I read much faster in my head! I think that's the main difference for me.

I've only recently (in the last year) started listening to audio books and I have learned soooooooooooooooo much about writing, but you've got a zillion comments here, so I won't take the time to write about it. If you don't want to count it as "reading" then definitely count it as part of your education (as well as lots of fun).

To me, an audiobook is the equivalent of sitting in Mom's lap and listening to her read the book. My kids love when I read to them, and they love to listen to audiobooks on long car trips. Either way, it counts as reading the book. It's not like Cliff Notes or watching the movie. You're still getting the book, the whole book and nothing but the book!

I'm a children's librarian and we certainly count audiobooks as reading for our summer reading program. Many kids come into the library who are struggling with reading and books--giving them the opportunity to listen to audiobooks, often alongside with the print, enhances their reading ability. I have one young man who has a strong reading disability. He plows through all the audiobooks I can recommend though and is always first in line for new ones in the series he has read.

Unless the assignment is meant to be physically read, where a student is specifically working on reading then why not count listening? Listening students may pay more attention and might even have a better idea of how to read aloud, having heard others bring the words to life.

And one final point--I do the audiobook selection for kids and teens. Our shelves right now, particularly the new books and Playaways, are really picked clean as people grab audiobooks for the summer.

Whoa! I'm vote 666. Yikes. Does that make my opinion evil?

When I asked my mother to read me another story, it didn't mean I couldn't read it myself. I wanted the experience of being read to, which I maintain is different from reading.

A favorite memory is being read "Stuart Little" and "Charlotte's Web" in elementary school with my head on my desk.

Listening to an audio book is, to me, the same as being read to. Not reading. It's a qualitatively different experience.

@Anon 12:36 (Off topic on wait times) No, I don't know, but in my inexperienced opinion, if you have an agent with whom you have a good relationship, surely you should be able to ask them if they are submitting on your behalf? They will know better than anything general you get from the Internet.

And if for whatever reason you don't want to ask, why not focus on writing your next project for distraction. All the best.

Yes, technically the listener has experienced the work. BUT it is not indepth OR careful reading.
Listening is second-rate reading!

Listening is a reading experience. (When people write they are always advised read it out loud. Physically hearing the words that have been written often bring about changes and improvements.
If the link is essential for us as writers how can we say it is not as valid reading experience.)
Writing is the effort to capture the oral story telling tradition.

I'd say no, it doesn't count as reading. Despite the fact that I learn the story, and all the words of the book (if unabridged), it's not my reading experience. I'm being talked to: there's an extra agent involved whose speech, voice, rhythm, speed (etc) I must pay attention to and get accustomed to, their voice interferes with my imagination. So no, for me an audiobook means a way weaker experience.

-g.

I thought about this one a while and decided to vote, "no."

I think reading involves more than just knowing a plot or absorbing a story. I think it needs more work than that.

When an author writes, regardless of what they're writing about, their own experiences and thoughts will inevitably influence how they are going to write.

The awesome thing about reading, to me, is that when I read a book, my thoughts and experiences are influencing how I interpret the text, and the experience of reading that book alone will influence how I take the next book.

Writing is an art. Giving written text meaning, is also an art.

When you are listening to an audiobook, there is a third party that is disrupting the link between the author, the text, and you. You are no longer left with only your own experiences to interpret the text--somebody else is giving it their mood and their pace with their voice.

Therefore, you are not reading--you are listening to somebody else read.

Still, I do think reading to children is important, but if the teacher assigns a story for a child to read as homework, it's probably best that they read it themselves, rather than having a parent read it to them.

I'm surprised it's so evenly split. To me reading is a verb, it's something you do. Listening to an audiobook is a different thing entirely. You might be able to absorb a book as well each way, depending on who you are and how you listen or read, but they can't be the same thing even by definition. Apparently my Vulcan semantics are getting in the way of seeing the debate.

I think the question is ambiguous, but I chose no. Listening to someone read is different from you reading the book in your hands. Different, in that the book is/isn't in your hands (dissimilar experiences accompany both as well).

But then if the question is more to do absorbing the story of a book and not physically reading that book then yes it's very possible - in fact, in some cases, better - to sink into the world of a book and take in everything while listening to an audiobook.

Part of the work of reading is interpreting the little blobs of ink. The same story in spoken form comes to the listener already interpreted, by the one reading it.

I actually remember books differently if I listen to them rather than read them.

I went back and forth on this, and said "no" on a technicality.

Reading is much more involved than listening. I'm sure there's some kind of colorful scan available somewhere to prove that brain activity is higher when you read rather than when you listen, but I'm just going on common sense here.

I feel it's the difference between watching someone paint a beautiful picture and painting one yourself. Even if the end result is identical, the process is different. Would you dare to say that you painted a picture that you had simply watched someone else paint? Hardly. Are you going to enjoy that painting any less because someone else painted it? Maybe. But not likely. The sense of accomplishment isn't there, but the picture is beautiful, just the same.

Yes. Suppose that while you were sick someone read 'War and Peace' to you at your bedside.

Now suppose that next week someone asks you "Have you ever read 'War and Peace'?"

You're hardly going to say "No", are you?

The answer really depends on the context. For the visually impaired and for young children the answer is 'absolutely yes'. However, how does someone become a strong reader if they don't read. How can a student be a better writer if they don't read (same goes for a writer). Seeing words and sentences take shape on the page and letting our mind absorb them helps us all improve our writing skills (of course you still have to practice writing, too).

I must admit my answer, though, is based on me being a visual person. My mind tends to drift when I listen to a book so I've learned years ago not to bother with them.

The brilliant science fiction writer, Orson Scott Card, believes that the audio book presentations of his work are indeed the "definitive editions."

"Ender's Game" is a classic that I did not read. I listened to it and I agree with the comments made in the afterward by the author. The audio book feels natural and it is the best way to experience the book.

In listening, we still experience the fullness of the literature and the piece of work. Therefore, I feel confident in discussing a work and saying that I have read it, even if I have only listened to the audio book.

I'm surprised there's so little mention of the art of imagination, something an author evokes through what s/he has written. The fact that a book may be read silently or aurally does not change the fact that the author means to create a dynamic relationship with a reader, one in which the reader takes part in the imaginative work. So I voted "Yes", because the reader must re-create and interpret character, setting, and so forth as the experience of the story moves forward for fiction, and knit the logic and illustrations of a non-fiction work together into what the author hoped was a coherent whole. It is the dynamic interaction between author and reader that constitutes "reading".

In answer to Genella's question, yes, they do have romance novels in braille. 

Now to this question.  I put yes, reading an audio book is exactly the same as reading it in text.  When I had my sight I used to read books and remember
that experience.  Now with my sight gone, I read audio books, and nothing is lost experience wise when you listen to the book.  The only difference in
audio and text, is that you can turn the pages in a text book, otherwise, there exactly the same. 

And to the people who say "why not just read a braille book" to us blind readers...do you have any idea how many volumes a brailled book is?  I have some
books in braille that are 200 pages, and those are 4 or 5 volumes of text.  My church hymn book is 8 volumes, my other church books in braille on paper
are 10 volumes.  In short, it's far too much storage!  Audio books are far more portable. 

But in short, yes reading an audio book is the same as reading a text book. 

Crystal

The first form of reading is listening.

Ancient tribes gather around the fire as the hunters spin a tale of their valor, of their grand adventures felling the great beasts of their time.

Infants and toddlers lie still under the cover of warm blanket, enraptured by the cadence and the weight of nursery rhymes, of fairy tales, told by their protective elders.

Once they learn the alphabets, once they've mastered reading, they whisper stories for their own ears, within and without.

I'm re-reading the Chronicles of Narnia on my iPhone. By which I mean listening to the audiobook. And I still get the same effect, of a movie playing in my head, as I do when reading.

Blabbering. I know.

I vote Hell Yeah!

I am going on vacation this summer. I decided to fly to save myself the pain of a 14 hour drive. Ultimately, I will get to the same destination as someone who drove but that doesn't mean I can say I drove.

Listening is not reading but it is still absorbing and it is a vital medium for books, journals, newspapers etc... that can't be ignored. It has opened the market to people who don't have time to or don't like to read.

I voted no because:

- Paging back to check a plot point or a physical description is a major hassle in an audio book.

- Footnotes either can’t be ignored or aren’t read

- Spelling counts - especially the funky spelling in SciFi novels. ‘Teklace’ does not mean ‘without technology’.

Writing is an art form. Material written for oral presentation uses different words and sentence structures to take advantage of how we listen.

Also, I note that audio books are appreciated in part because they allow the listener to multitask. I think this says more about our lifestyles than it does about appreciation of literature. Part of the joy of reading with eyes (or fingers) is not doing anything else while reading.

You bet it does.
~jon

...its all about STORY, right?

I just want to share this... because some of the commenters here do go to my blog and others might like this.

At my blog (marjorie-digest), I just posted some photos of an art reception I went to last night. You can see me with Jerry, Edie Beale's "Marble Faun," and Albert Maysles!

How wonderful it was to see them together again, almost 35 years after that legendary documentary was made.

Two questions:

If someone recounts an experience, is it yours?

If someone feeds you, are you eating?

I think it does. For people with cataracts that cannot see much, it is a joy to listen to audio books. My grandmother cannot really see anymore, even with large print, and she has enjoyed books her whole life. The audio books provide her entertainment and topics to discuss with other people her age.

No I don't think its the same.

Reading a book is a total self absorbed experience. Its relaxation at its best.

However because we are in a world that somehow requires us to multi- task, most of us will be doing something else while we listen to a book. Driving, balancing our checkbook, cooking, etc. Its simply not the same experience.

It is disheartening to me that so few people actually sit down with a book and actually read the words on the page. So many people are into instant gratification rather than anticipation. Sad but true.

I chose yes because you are absorbing the knowledge of the book. If I listened to an audiobook, I would put it on my "books read" list. That's beyond the point though, as I don't particularly like audiobooks. Hm. . .

I absolutely believe it's reading. There are many people, either through illiteracy or vision handicaps that are unable to pick up a book and read. For others who have a passel of children or 60 hour work week jobs with long commutes are unable to relax in the recliner with a good novel. For these people, the escape one would find in a book is found through another reading said book to them.

Until I screamed, "Enough" last year, I worked 60 hours a week, and had a commute of one hour each way. Were I not able to take advantage of audiobooks, I think that I would have gone insane. Audiobooks were, and continue to be when I work out, my escapist therapy.

And then there's the part of me whose trying to break into the world of audiobook narrating...

I was once a huge book snob. Audiobooks were beneath me because you didn't get the full experience of reading. Then I met my dyslexic husband. Reading a book is incredibly hard for him, so the only way for him to truly enjoy a book is if it's in audio form. Since then I've grown to love the audio book. They're great for exercise and really long car rides.

Hi Katrina- I agree with you that reading is relaxation at its best; but, it struck an off chord with me to read that you think “so few people actually sit down with a book.” I think people are still reading. Although I left the publishing industry for mommyhood, I still feel very attached to it, and I believe in its longevity. At any rate, it may make you feel better to know that Amazon’s revenue stream is massive and not showing signs of declining. In 2008, a half million Kindles sold (which attributed to the 18% surge in profits in their fourth quarter) and overall revenue reached 6.7 billion. I think about half of that number equates to books, audiobooks, and other media. And, that’s just Amazon. Feel better? :-)

Great discussion. And I also find the language people are using to be sort of interesting, particularly in defense of audiobooks. "But what about people who can't read? They can listen to audiobooks!" Which is totally true and valid... but the very defense highlights the difference. Listening to an audiobook is something you can do if you can't read...

I also think it's sort of interesting that so many people seemed to take the question as a knock on audiobooks, and have defended their value. And they certainly have value. Oral storytelling preceded written stories, and so the written versions are sort of like young second cousins of the original form.

I think in the end I lean towards the different but equal stance. They're both wonderful and equally valid forms of experiencing stories, but they offer different absorption processes. Interpretation for one, and audience for the other.

In the end, of course, it's always going to be the story that matters.

If a friend sits in the passenger seat of the car and reads a book out loud, does that mean only she has read the book and now I haven't? Do I then have to go out and get the book and read it again? Do my eyes actually have to have read the words?

I think audiobooks are redefining the way we think of reading. Without audiobooks, I'd probably read only a book or two a year. I absorb just as much from hearing the books as reading them myself.

Ben made a very good point about the filter a translation provides. Sometimes, voice gets lost, and it's so important for understanding a book, isn't it?

Now, how would you feel if somebody said you couldn't claim to have read War and Peace unless you've read it in Russian? (Or Shakespeare in the Klingon original?) It sounds awfully snobbish to my ears.

People read for all kinds of reasons, to follow a story, to enjoy creative language, to dissect the techniques used in writing. Maybe, you lose out on punctuation and paragraphing if you listen to an audio book, so you actually have to put the nose to the page if that's what you are reading for, but for most other purposes, the audio book will do. Unabridged.

Can you cross a book off the list of 1001 Books to Read if you listened to the audio? I vote yes.

What if it is a graphic novel with pictures?

What if the graphic novel is on a Kindle that reads the text to you?

What if the pictures are are shown so fast that they appear to be moving?

It all depends on your definition of reading. The world is not black or white it is a lot of grays.

No, listening to an audio book is not reading anymore than listening to music is playing an instrument.

An illiterate person can listen to a book but cannot read.

If audiobooks don't count, then why does a blind person say he has READ such and such a title.

And yes, that is how they define it. They then have to explain to many that audiobooks are easier, lighter and less bulky than braille and faster.

Reading is a story that engages the mind with words, not the eyes.

I suffer from migraines and blurred vision so I love audio books. If someone asked me...did you read The Guernsey Literary and Potato Peel Pie Society is it wrong for me to say, YES? Or do I have to qualify that and say...I listened to it? Should I quit book club because I didn't read with my eyes? Or can I still make a worthy contribution? I feel that the audio book does qualify as reading, but I am glad to know how many people deem it lesser! Also, I would like to say that it would be a far greater shame if people weren't indulging themselves on books period!!! It's hardly sad that people buy audio books. That is just silly to me.

It’s a proven fact that listening vs. reading does not activate/use the same processes in the brain.

Many a student knows the difference between reading on a subject and hearing a lecture.

For me, there is no doubt that listening is not the same as reading. Reading is more personal, and I 'hear' the book in my own voice, when I hear any voice at all.

When I listen to someone else read, I occasionally get hung up on how he's said a word or stressed a point. The reader controls the delivery, and therefore, stands between the author and me.

However, some people are auditory and others visual. Auditory learners may not enjoy the process of reading for themselves.

My brother was also dyslexic, and he can't stand to read, but he loves to learn. For people like him, audio books are a Godsend.

I still consider braille reading. The words are still being read, with fingers instead of eyes, but it involves the same process of interpretation.

Audiobooks I consider being read to. But that doesn't mean it's a lesser experience, just a different one.

I find this debate so fascinating, I’ve decided to way in again. I feel safe in assuming that I am the only severely dyslexic person who regularly “reads” this blog, and as such I have a much more intimate relationship with the wonderful world of audio books. I voted “yes” and when speaking in the past tense, I do consider reading and listening exactly the same thing. If someone asked me, “have you read any good books lately?” I’m not going to ignore the many books I’ve listened to when making a recommendation.

But the physical act of listening is a very different experience than that of reading. I do know how to read, but I’m sure I read in a very different way than most of the other would be writers that follow this blog. I often get really caught up on the letters, and have a hard time fully processing what I’m looking at. While reading a story, I am able to grasp the general concept, but I often miss the subtler nuances of the story. Listening is completely different. When listening to a story, my eyes are completely free. I don’t have to look at the words on the page, so it’s easier to visualize the events in my head.

A few listening haters have commented that listening to the book equates to watching the movie. I tend to find this kind of offensive, but in a twisted way they are right. When I listen to a book, I normally feel like I am watching it. The “movie” the author created is magically unfolding in my mind. But when I read a book, well them I’m just staring at a piece of paper. The experience is never as rich or as meaningful.

I can still recall not only the plot points of stories I listened to 20 years ago, but also the exact way I felt while I was listening to them. Audio books have touched me so deeply they have become a part of who I am and how I see the world. The only thing I remember about reading as a kid is feeling pissed off and deflated.

So maybe listening and reading aren’t the same thing. But at least for me, listening is infinitely better.

Five nights a week, I sit on the couch and read to my wife and son. Is my son "reading" right then? I say he's not. He's being read to. It may be close to the act of reading, but it's not the same thing.

49 to 50.

We certainly put that topic to bed, didn't we!

I said yes. The story is still getting into your brain. It's just traveling through your ears rather than your eyes. Blind people read with their fingers, don't they? (Or listen to an audiobook, I'd bet. =D)

This is a case for semantics!

Example 1:
"Have you read that book?"
"Yes, I listened to it in my car."

Example 2:
"I enjoyed listening to that book more than I did reading it."

Example 3:
"Who cares? I watched the movie."

In Example 1, polite conversation, having listened to an audio book counts as 'reading' it because the person is asking whether or not you know the contents.

In Example 2, the topic of concern is the experience of reading it, thus, a distinction is needed.

In Example 3, the person should be whacked upside the head and tied to a chair with only a glass of water and a book.

Note: I've had to do this to myself several times after watching the Harry Potter movies before reading the books.

How many lives have we got to read all the books we would like to read? Being at the shorter end of the candle I'm quite happy to be read to- reminds me of the days at school when the teacher read out loud David Copperfield, Black Beauty, Alice in Wonderland, Three Men in a Tub, The Water Babies, Lorna Doone... Sigh... Life was wonderful then.

I used to 'read' books on tape (before CDs) while driving 58 miles each way to work. Sometimes I got off shift at 9-1-1 in a snowstorm at 12:30 at night and the books helped keep me awake. I count this as 'reading a book' as your mind still has to consider the plot, the characters, the highs and the lows.

Nancy
Raleigh, NC

Does it count for /what/?

For a child's summer reading program? Usually not.

For the improvement of your spelling ability? Absolutely not. When you see the word written, your subconscious makes a note of how it is spelled. When you hear it spoken, you don't get that benefit.

For purposes of "Yes, I read that book - wasn't it great?" Of course! You got the story.

For purposes of improving your writing? Probably. You get the grammar and structure of the story.

It all depends on what you want it to "count" for.

No. Reading a book and listening to a book being read to you are two different things. They engage different areas of the brain.

BOTH are very satisfying and serve the same purpose of enlightening and/or entertaining, but they are not the same thing.

But my question would be "count for what?"... Acquiring the knowledge presented in a book? Sure. Why not. For my able-minded 2nd grader's homework? No, he has to read the words himself, not listen to them if he wants to get the exercise correct and earn a passing grade.

It is SO not reading, lol! But that's ok.

I vote yes! Recently, I have been listening to podcast novels including the great Scott Sigler, JC Hutchins, Tee Morris and Pip Ballantine. I have listened to them perform their books and I absolutely feel that I have "read" them. I remember them more vividly than books that I have skim read, the audio resonates in my mind so much more. The brain processes information and a book can enter through my eyes or my ears. Thanks, Joanna

Here's the thing. I voted yes even though *personally* I don't like audiobooks very much (my attention wanders because I have the chance to focus on other things with my eyes, and if I close my eyes, I fall asleep).

I work at a library whose sole purpose is to produce (if not acquire), under Canadian copyright law, textbooks in alternate formats for anyone with a print impairment (blindness, dyslexia, visual impairment, etc). And for them, when we produce an audio version of a book, listening is the only way they can access that book. That *is* their definition of reading: listening. Just as a blind reader running her fingers over braille is also reading. So maybe it's not *my* preferred method of reading, but it is still reading for someone out there.

I listened to the entire Harry Potter series on audio and it was a brilliant experience. The same reader did all of the books so the character voices and tones were consistent all the way through. Hearing the dialogue in a proper British accent made the stories new and alive to me - I highly recommend it to anyone.

The same goes for John Grisham books. A reader with a proper southern accent gives life, depth, and breadth to a Grisham novel that the printed page cannot.

Finally, on abridged works. There is one particular political thriller author who has excellent ideas that are poorly executed. His editor needs to cut words by the pound. Paragraph after paragraph of extraneous description that bog down the action and adventure.

I can't finish the books in print. I love them in abridged audio. Stripped down to the essential action, the stories are fantastic!

So, YES, audio is reading.

Phfft! Of course! Who even cares what the format is? It's the BOOK that matters.

Definition of To Listen:
1: to pay attention to sound
2: to hear something with thoughtful attention : give consideration

Definition of To Read:
1 a (1): to receive or take in the sense of (as letters or symbols) especially by sight or touch
1 a: to perform the act of reading words : read something

Audiobooks are not bad, they are great but you are not reading. You are listening. Technically they aren't books either, they are tapes/cd's.

As of this point, it looks evenly split. Interesting.

I think we've got a continuum of ways to experience a written story. On the one end is reading, where the reader's imagination has to do all the work in turning the words into an experience. In the middle, there's audiobooks where the reader's voice inflections guide the listener's interpretation of the material. There's also audio plays ("The Shadow knows..."), where the listener's imagination has to do less work because the actors voices mean the listener doesn't have to imagine what the characters sound like and the narrator's voice can convey tension in tone as well as word choice and sentence structure. Then on the other far end is video/movie work. Here, the audience doesn't have to do much work at all. Everything is right there on the screen, and all they have to do is interpret the actor's work to extrapolate emotion and meaning.

I don't consider audiobooks reading because they are a less private experience and require less concentration and imagination than reading. However, I prefer not to read in the car during my commute, and audiobooks are certainly a valid and entertaining way to experience a story without resulting in a traffic catastrophe.

I was sort of torn on this - I mean, if you're a teacher reading to your class, YOU are the one reading. Your kids are listening. Yes, they're getting the story and learning to enjoy books... but they aren't reading themselves. If you don't know how to read, you can't listen to an audio book and then claim you've learned.

I'm not saying that you aren't getting a similar experience, that the content you've heard is all that different from what someone else read... but if I look at it from a technical aspect... no, you're listening, not reading. The person whose voice you're listening to? They did the reading.

I voted for this as "reading," but actually I'm rather torn over it myself. I find myself agreeing with comments posted here from both sides of the argument.

When I listen to an audiobook, I'm not technically reading, as reading is interpreting letters on a page. But I'm absorbing the story of a book - what else would you call it? I'm at a loss.

Until "listening" to a book becomes a commonplace phrase in our language, and equal to reading in meaning, people (read: me) will continue to say they've read a book, even if they've listened to the audiobook.

Thank you for this poll, Nathan. Isn't it interesting that the results (as of Thurs, about noon) are nearly split even?

I think we came to a consensus...
Unless you are dyslexic, have ADD, are prone to migraines, are blind or you have no fingers...listening to audio books is NOT reading. The aforementioned exceptions get a free pass...YES...you're reading. The rest of you are lazy, illiterate, too busy, uptight and invalid. Sweet! Alienation rocks!

I voted no, but that's not a statement against audiobooks. I just don't think it is reading.

I even believe that some books are better listened to than read, especially when read by the author. Two examples that come to mind are Steven Colbert and David Sedaris. Both have a style that is much better listened to than read.

No, they're not the same. I don't know why so many people mentioned braille as the comparison. Clearly, braille is much closer to reading than an audiobook is.

For one thing, you are still absorbing braille mentally, internally, and the words are going through your own mental filter.

Listening, on the other hand, involves someone ELSE doing the filtering, deciding when to pause, when to stop, when to raise and lower pitch.

I vehemently disagree with the way some audiobook readers phrase their sentences. But when I read, I can pharse them in the way that I like. There is a 'customizable' factor to reading that will never happen with an audiobook. I'm sorry, but it's true.

I know I'm late here, but...From what research I've seen, listening has many of the same benefits as reading- children's brains develop in many of the same areas by listening to books as reading them- including vocabulary, grammar, comprehension, and it increases their writing skills.
The two modes are not the same, but there's a reason you're supposed to read to children for half an hour a day- even when they're babies. TV does NOT give these same benefits, but audiobooks do.

At my library - yes. Kids can listen to audiobooks for summer reading. My mom is a dyslexia/reading therapist and often uses audiobooks with kids, plus I've noticed that kids will listen to a book they've already read, or go read a book after they've listened to it.

If an author does his/her job right, then the reader gets lost in the story and stops reading the individual words. There is a point where the story is more than the words, it's akin to transubstantiation.

As a writer, I love the words, but when I'm just reading for entertainment, I love to get lost in the story.

I love audiobooks when I drive. And I let myself get caught up in the story. As a writer, sometimes, if I really love the story, I'll buy the hard copy of the book as well, to see how the writer handled its puctuation, its formatting. Sometimes I just need to see the words.

And I've come to find some genre's don't work for me in audio. I can't "read" mystery or a thriller when I drive. If I miss something I can't go back to look at where the clues were as easily. That may just be me.

Finally, some performers/readers just don't do the text justice. Some help. I do believe the actor can help, but if the words are good, they should sweep us away be they be on the page or in the voice. They are, after all, just words.