What would you think about starting again with "The Archive should have been wet" and moving theverything preceding that to right before the paragraph starting with "The Archive felt like a beast to her after all these years"?

The book is called The Archive. I don't think it's wrong to start with the words "The Archive." Also the word "should," which makes the reader go, "THEN WHY ISN'T IT, DAMMIT?"

I think that might work, but you might want to fiddle with the description in such a way that it intimates the existence of a character, because while it's cool to start with a description of the Archive, you don't want to make the reader think the entire prologue is going to be like a history lesson. Maybe it's already there in the tone, though. Re-reading those bits, I like them more than I first did. The mystifiedness of it all. The inability to believe its existence. Which could only come from a character or a personalized narrator, either of which should be enough for the reader to turn the page. I like narrators.

You're welcome for the comments. Glad they were helpful.

Pssst, P-C...wanna see Ch. 1? That might give you a clearer idea of one of the two main protagonists. Also, it would clarify how the narrative voice will generally sound.

(comments wouldn't be necessary unless you wanted to give them--this isn't an attempt to make you do more work for me, promise!)

Gimme!

I think that might work, but you might want to fiddle with the description in such a way that it intimates the existence of a character, because while it's cool to start with a description of the Archive, you don't want to make the reader think the entire prologue is going to be like a history lesson. Maybe it's already there in the tone, though.

Yep, that's been my biggest issue. I wanted to start with the mystery (and establish the room as a character, in a sense), but I also didn't want it to feel like a history lesson. Trust me, I'm actually doing a lot better! One of my earlier drafts was about twice as long because I had written all kinds of history into it that didn't need to be there.

Gimme!

You got it.

serial, and I don't mean the comma:

Connie, I have already seen books with references to 911. And I actually think that something set in "contemporary Manhatten" without a 911 reference is much more off-putting. There just wasn't anyone in the city who wasn't affected in a major, life-altering way, and (for me, personally) it bothers me when authors pretend it never happened. Even if it doesn't get published for several years, I can't see it not being relevant and essential to that character's past.

Also:

The heroine was in a relationship with a severely abusive man, but she was finally able to walk away--true, she'd just gotten engaged to someone else, but one takes one's impetuses where one can. If I did the scene where she walks away from him, and the villain is apparently calm and supportive while she's terribly nervous but determined, it should make people wonder what's up with that. Plus if people think she's gotten married, readers shouldn't automatically realize it's her when she turns up single again. This could work.

I love that idea. I think that would work beautifully.

There just wasn't anyone in the city who wasn't affected in a major, life-altering way, and (for me, personally) it bothers me when authors pretend it never happened.

See, for me, I just think of Trudes at brunch talking about meeting her friend on top of the World Trade Center, and how she seemed so natural. Maybe 9/11 was in the back of her mind, but it felt like she was comfortable with the reference.

There just wasn't anyone in the city who wasn't affected in a major, life-altering way, and (for me, personally) it bothers me when authors pretend it never happened.

I'm afraid I'm going to sound hopelessly shallow for even attempting to defend my POV above, but I think it entirely depends on the type of work. There's a certain style of book that just feels like it's set in a sort of alternate reality present, and in those books any too-specific reference to current events or recent history jars me, because it seems to anchor them to a specific historical moment in a way that hinders rather than helps my enjoyment of the story.

See, for me, I just think of Trudes at brunch talking about meeting her friend on top of the World Trade Center, and how she seemed so natural. Maybe 9/11 was in the back of her mind, but it felt like she was comfortable with the reference.

No, I get that--I'm not saying that someone always has to be talking or thinking about it. But if the question is whether or not it is gauche for a character who lived through it to think about it in a moment of meloncholy, then I say not at all.

ETA: That was in response to P-C.

Susan, I hear what you're saying and actually agree--I was just thinking that if Connie is already thinking about including it, then it sounds likely to be a more "this history" kind of book.

Ah--see, I read her question as more, "Do I have to include this?" which made me think her story was more a timeless alterna-present book.

Oh, good point, Susan. I may have misread.

In any case, hopefully all of our various takes on the issue will be helpful for you one way or another, Connie!