About the unnecessity of prologues

Most of them, that is. I dislike those that were just added for the sake of it. Why would people do that? Prologues only have a place when they're relevant, for instance, when, in Fantasy or Science Fiction, characters of the here and now will appear in future and what they are discovering, the quarrels or change to the landscape they're in are important to the storyline which takes place either centuries or years ahead. 

Or, if it sets the scene for the whole book, referring to significant changes to the world the characters live in. That I will read with interest.

But too many times, prologues are either the back story of characters I don't even know yet, hence not really care about, or they are an excerpt of the novel, which spoils the plot for me. I want to read it and find out for myself.

In many cases, prologues can be avoided and easily interwoven in the actual book. Let me give you an example: I'm currently reading a book where the prologue shows a female dancer on the height of her career, just proposed by her long-term (extremely unlikable, arsehole) boyfriend, in a car, on the way to her parents, in a thunderstorm. They have an accident.

The actual story starts seven years later, she's not with that guy anymore and not an active dancer, but a dance teacher. The author is regularly referring to the past, to her ex, to the accident as it's the cause for her not being able to dance without pain anymore.
I keep wondering what purpose this prologue served. Those few pages could have easily been combined into two sentences of back story when we actually know more about that woman and how much dancing means to her, and the new man in her life, for that matter. If the author wrote, she danced with pain, the reader wonders why, and there she could've mentioned the accident. Simple and most effective.

And I read plenty of prologues like that. Redundant, in my opinion. If you need to write a prologue, do it because it would enhance the novel, needs to be there. Not because you like the word 'prologue' so much.

Writng a novel - Behind the scenes

Many people have a stereotypical picture of an author in mind: busily typing away, surrounded by mess, hair dishevelled, forgetting the time - until they're finished with their manuscript.
In some cases, this might actually be the case, but in many cases - at least in my case - it looks more like this: an author staring at a blank page, looking around, thinking, a painful expression on the face, fingers hovering over the keyboard, wondering why the heck the letters won't spill onto the Word document. I will type one or two sentences, but delete them immediately when I'm not happy. I know many set themselves the tasks to write 1000 words a day. I can't do that. There are days when my characters won't let me into their heads and if I wrote on those days, I'd write utter rubbish, only to have to delete it later, which I hate. Oh I can't tell you how much I hate deleting things. Luckily it rarely happens anymore; it might need editing, but never deleting.
I wonder how others do it, writing one novel after another. I've managed to complete three books since April 2009 and am almost done with the fourth, that's not a massive amount of books, is it? I've started about seven more, but they don't count.
Currently, I'm trying to finish the sequel to No Wings Attached often fighting with myself. Should I push it for another half an hour and see what my mind comes up with? Or should I give up for today? I know it's not writer's block, it's simply my perfectionism standing in the way. Sometimes, I'll try to come up with something and one sentence leads to another, and I'll end up getting into the flow, accumulating words fast, that's the state when writing takes you to another level, when you really forget everything around you. Sadly it doesn't happen often.
To me, creating a novel is hard work. Not that I don't appreciate it - quite the contrary, but it can be the toughest job on earth if you get stuck, especially, when you, like me, plot as you go along. I wish I could be the type of person who does a detailed outline in advance, that would help a lot, but, unfortunately, I'm not. It takes me at least six months or more to finish a first draft, many think it's a piece of cake to write a compelling novel, but it's not, certainly not for me. But I'll get there in the end, so I tell myself, trying to spur me on. I know I couldn't live without writing, it's what keeps me sane, it's my outlet, my challenge. That's probably why I can put up with the pain of staring at a blank page an hour many a day, in hope that, eventually, I'll be able to ride on a wave of words again.

This is for all of you who struggle once in a while.

The problems with conflicting advice

I've discussed this issue on a writers' forum yesterday. Though I think editing, rewriting and tweaking is essential, I see a lot of writers having difficulties with conflicting advice. Thinking back to my early days, I had comments on my book on what to change, what to delete, what to pad, etc. I personally was relatively sure what I wanted and didn't get confused; my story hasn't changed one bit, but I see others change their ms after each comment they receive, often until it's beyond recognition.
The problem is: it's all down to preference. Someone doesn't like first person, present tense, don't go and change the whole book into past tense. Some think a particular scene could be deleted, some don't. I guess what I'm saying is that you have to stick to your guns, trust yourself, listen to the advice and ponder, but don't change everything that someone suggests, unless it really makes sense and you love it even more after the changes.
Many beginners are insecure and listen far too often to others than to their instincts. People talk differently, in different speech patterns, the more you try to please those who criticise, the more you're losing your voice. 
I, for instance, have sent out my literary fiction novel to five people. Two only wanted to do me a favour, but it was clearly not for them, one got back with suggestions that would alter the whole concept of the book, one got back with excellent suggestions and the confirmation for what I had the feeling might be wrong: it lacks 'excitement' in the middle part, and one loved it so much to actually pass it on to an editor who loves it equally.
I've had men and women reading the book and I got valuable feedback from all five readers. It helps to know your writing, your voice and to see where the changes might affect it. Step back from your ms and think as a reader for a while, would you be excited by the book or do you think it could be improved? Get advice from a hand full of people and take every comment into account. I've once posted an excerpt on facebook and someone went to rewrite the whole scene. Though well-meant it wasn't my voice anymore.
What I look for are suggestions that make the story stronger, not the voice. Some people who mean well, but don't know how to critique will start fiddling with your wordings, change your vocabulary and the way you write in general and they will start correcting each other; if you start listening to those, you'll easily lose your voice by changing it back an forth. 
Same goes for the so-called 'rules' in writing. Some people will try to edit everything out of your manuscript, adverbs are not bad, you just need to keep them under control. I see those 'rules' as guidelines, not as set-in-stone rules to follow. Though you should know the 'rules' to break them. 
Best is to have mentor who will teach but doesn't influence you.

The gloves are off the 3rd! Just because you've written a book doesn't make you a writer

I've been thinking about this for a long while, pondering if I should post this, but I feel I need to say something. It's my blog in the end and I can post whatever I like, right?
I've been watching the Indie community for the past few months and I've been among 'writers' for over two years now. What I have observed is a lot of people who have written a book, think they are now a writer and will be famous author. Their mum, auntie, sister, gran and two best friends said their book's great, too, so it must be true. Bursting with confidence they submit their humble scribblings. Then: the truth hits home, rejection after rejection; soon, they will be able to plaster their entire house with them. Still, they don't think something's wrong with their writing, it's the others who don't recognise their genius.
They decide to go for self-publishing. Heavens thank Kindle, Nook and Smashwords. They get their friends and family to buy a copy each and write a review. Of course it's all praise. Ah, it looks so pretty, doesn't it? When the first real reader buys the book and complains about the bad editing, poor characterisation and plot, apart from the typos and other errors, it's the arsehole who didn't get it, when more negative comments arrive, they cry out for people to put those stupid reviewers right.
No joking, I've seen it all. I wonder if the 'never give up' advice might do more damage than good to some of the 'authors' out there. Stephenie Meyer's and J.K. Rowling's rejections are quoted. Well, Meyer had about 15 and Rowling 12. That's nothing in publishing. I got about 45 for all my three book together. Then, I don't write YA and I don't have a series at the ready. I know why my books got rejected, though I had an acceptance for the shorts stories and an offer to resend after tweaking for No Wings Attached, both of which I denied in the end.
I hear pure readers when they say they have enough of Indies, though there are quite a few who are good, sell well and made themselves a name, there are still far more who receive dream-shattering reviews on their books. Or there are plenty of Indies who don't sell, despite all effort to market their books. Maybe that's a hint for them to either write something else, or just give up. Maybe that's why they got so many rejections in the first place (unless they write for a small market)? Perhaps they need to learn a bit more about writing and hone their skills before they throw their unreadable books at the public. Many readers already voice their demand for some sort of quality for the Indie books, I absolutely agree. I guess that would shake up the market considerably and we'd have about a third of books left. A certain standard would force aspiring authors to edit and proof-read their books until they're green in the face. A shame they're not doing it already voluntarily, it's part of the 'job'.
And: not every person who has written a book is cut out for the industry. To survive as an author, you need to learn constantly, produce at least one book a year - a book of quality, that is, the Indie-market is fast and every changing, before you know it, you're forgotten. And that's the pressure many self-appointed authors can't handle.

Always remember: just because mummy says you've written the next bestseller, doesn't necessarily mean it's true.

JUST ADDED after misunderstandings: I'm not addressing the issue of cutting edge literature or books that don't fit into neat genres, they often have a small readership, hence the low sales. 

On writing the first draft

I recently read a blog post from an author who sort of 'insisted' to write a draft in one go before editing it. First, I don't like being told what to do and second, that technique might work for her, but not for me. I've never really been like that, write like there's no tomorrow and edit when you've completed the book.
Even with No Wings Attached, which was my first novel, I wrote at night and edited the next day, then sent it to my friend who returned it with comments, so I could revise. I don't know any different and it works well for me. I still managed to have the 'first draft' ready after 2.5 months. Needless to say that my friend did a light edit and I had to learn a lot about writing, which I didn't know back then. It almost cost me the novel as I wanted to throw it into the Thames after the 10th round of editing. I cut out 40k, changed bits here and there, rewrote complete scenes, etc. I grew very tired of it.
Now, two years later, I still work the same way: I write, then edit the next day. The only difference is that I don't have my friend going through it chapter by chapter and that my writing is much tighter, so I end up with a pretty polished first draft. I also write slower, which means, I think about what I'm writing, I try to avoid repetition, he said, she said where it's clear who speaks, control my use of adverbs and make sure everything flows. That's my way of working on the first draft.
I'm 20k into the sequel and it already took me as long as the complete first book, but then, when I'm done in about two months, I need to go through it maybe two more times and it's ready for proofing. But 4 months writing and 1 months editing is much quicker than writing 2.5 months writing and 2 years of editing.

My advice for anyone out there is: do whatever suits you best. :-)