# Why use prelude instead of prologue?



## Avara

I've seen this in a few books in the past and it has always bugged me.  Why do some authors call their prologues preludes?  It doesn't make any sense to me.  Do they just not realize the difference?  are they thinking it sounds more poetic?  Or is there possibly a good reason that some authors choose the term prelude over prologue?

I certainly haven't been able to think of one.  Any thoughts?


----------



## Scribble

Just to rustle up some definitions, saving me from typing it out, I consulted the oracle (Google). These are pretty spot on.



> A Prelude deals with music. An introductory or preliminary performance or event; a short piece of music that acts as an introduction to a longer piece. They're the same thing, but Prelude deals with music and Prologue deals with literature.
> 
> A Preface is an introduction to a book written by the author of the book. The preface often closes with acknowledgements of those who assisted in the project. You have the basic idea, but the Preface is what the author wants you to know at the start of the book, without revealing the whole plot or story. ~not to be confused with a foreward!~
> 
> A Foreward is an introductory essay written by a different person and precedes an author's preface.
> 
> A Prologue is an introductory section of a literary work. It often contains information establishing the situation of the characters or presents information about the setting, time period, or action. In drama, the prologue is spoken by a Chorus or by one of the principal characters.
> 
> A Preface is basically a Prologue, but it's written by the authors in their own perspective. A Prologue is just a general intro of the book with no bias or perspective implied.



You could call it anything you want, really... Calling it a prelude doesn't change the fact that it's a prologue, because it is literature, not music. Why? Just to use a different word? A word-conscious writer might play on the musical connotation of the word, by giving chapter names or parts that echo musical movements.


----------



## Avara

Yeah, that's a thought i had but the instances in which i've seen it used have never used it that way.  In fact the only places i can think of where i have seen it have been books with rather amateurish writing, which is what leads me to the conclusion that the only reason any author uses the term "prelude" is because it "sounds prettier".  That's fine if you're writing poetry but if you're writing prose then it's a really lame excuse in my mind.


----------



## Steerpike

I don't think it makes a difference what you call it. Who cares?

If you have a prologue to begin with, you should take a hard look at why you've decided to present the reader with a bunch of stuff that takes place before your story starts in Chapter 1. But if you're going to have it, I don't think it makes a difference whether you call it a Prologue or Prelude. Call it an Overture if you want. It's a trivial issue to me, and the terminology itself isn't going to make me read it or skip it.


----------



## skip.knox

There's no need to get too worked up over this. Prelude literally means before the play, before the game. The fact that it eventually got associated with music is something that happened after the word itself. No need to go all 18th century over it. For that matter, I seem to recall some SF books that opened with an "overture". 

Personally, I prefer "Chapter One"


----------



## Trick

skip.knox said:


> Personally, I prefer "Chapter One"



Agreed. I read prologues but so many people don't I'm afraid to put anything important in one. So why not just drop them altogether.

EDIT: although, I must say, I wish I could do one and know that most would read it. I like the format of a prologue/epilogue but I'm still hesitant.


----------



## Steerpike

Trick said:


> Agreed. I read prologues but so many people don't I'm afraid to put anything important in one. So why not just drop them altogether.



Exactly. I once heard a published author advise against putting anything important in a prologue for that reason. So I say just ditch the thing.


----------



## Scribble

When I go to the book store, I skip to chapter 1 and read the first three pages. If I get gripped, I may buy it. If I buy it, I _will _ actually read the prologue.


----------



## Weaver

I have no idea why someone would use this term instead of "prologue," unless they're just trying to get around the "Never write a prologue!" rule by calling it something else.  (I should ask Greg.  His novel has a prelude.  I thought it was odd to call it that, but it never occurred to me to ask before now.  He is a musician as well as a novelist, though, so that could have something to do with it.)

As for why not to just call the thing "Chapter 1"... There's a difference between writing a prologue that is A Narrative of the History of Everything in the World Until Now, and writing a scene that is part of the story but happens, say, six months before the rest of it.  Rather than disorient the reader by having a big gap between Chapter 1 and Chapters 2 through 30, the first chapter is called the prologue instead.  (I once read a novel that began with Chapter 2.)


----------



## Steerpike

I think the idea that a six-month gap between Chapters 1 and 2 is going to disorient the reader shows too little faith in the reader. Why would the reader be disoriented so long as the author is clear about the gap?


----------



## Trick

Weaver said:


> (I once read a novel that began with Chapter 2.)



Do you remember what it was?


----------



## Scribble

What would I put in a prologue...? 

A bard telling the song of the Old Ones...
The uttering of a curse a thousand years ago...
Prophecy?

It has to be very disconnected from the narrative to warrant a prologue, or prelude, or whatever the heck you want to call it. Otherwise... as others have said... it's chapter one with a fancy name.


----------



## Weaver

Trick said:


> Do you remember what it was?



_Roadmarks_, by Roger Zelazny.  Every single chapter is either Chapter 1 or Chapter 2, following one of two major characters.  I cannot recall if it's the 1's or the 2's that are also not in chronological order.  I do wish I'd known about this particular quirk before I bought a copy when I was 17; I thought at first that I'd gotten a defective book and that Chapter 1 was missing!


----------



## Feo Takahari

Personally, I used the term "prelude" as part of a pattern. I had middle sections that had the same style and purpose as the beginning, and it felt really archaic to call them "interlogues", so I called them "interludes", and worked backwards to get "prelude" instead of "prologue". (On the other hand, I didn't know what you call the ending of a song, so I just kept the term "epilogue" as is.)


----------



## Weaver

Feo Takahari said:


> Personally, I used the term "prelude" as part of a pattern. I had middle sections that had the same style and purpose as the beginning, and it felt really archaic to call them "interlogues", so I called them "interludes", and worked backwards to get "prelude" instead of "prologue". (On the other hand, I didn't know what you call the ending of a song, so I just kept the term "epilogue" as is.)



To match a _prelude_ at the beginning, you'd use a _postlude_ at the end (if you have such a thing -- you don't need an epilogue just because you have a prologue, after all).


----------



## Weaver

Scribble said:


> What would I put in a prologue...?
> 
> A bard telling the song of the Old Ones...
> The uttering of a curse a thousand years ago...
> Prophecy?
> 
> It has to be very disconnected from the narrative to warrant a prologue, or prelude, or whatever the heck you want to call it. Otherwise... as others have said... it's chapter one with a fancy name.



Real example:  The first chapter in a novel is set in the year 1456.  It's an important part of the story for several reasons.  The next chapter is set in the year 2127, as is the rest of the novel.  That's a pretty big jump in time.  I think that calling the first chapter "Chapter 1" instead of "Prologue" would have made that jump disorienting/confusing for the reader.  By calling it a prologue, the author lets the reader know that this chapter is set apart from the rest of the story in some way.

I know a lot of people say they skip all prologues because 'all prologues are irrelevant and everyone skips them so why write them,' but isn't that a self-perpetuating thing?  If people would just, y'know, start _reading_ those prologues again instead of assuming they're all bad just because David Eddings or whoever used to write the kind that our editors warned us about ('History of the Whole World Until Now' kind of prologue), because you can't _know_ if it's any good until you at least take a glance at it and see whether or not it's 'irrelevant to the story'...


----------



## phillipsauthor

My first (unpublished) novel used a prologue of that kind - a "happened a long time ago" brief scene that set things up for the entire novel. I really liked it: it was exciting, full of action, and promised dark things to come. The problem that was pointed out to me, however, was that it made the characters in my prologue were immediately the characters to whom readers became attached. It was confusing to readers, I was told, to have to wait until halfway through the book to hear about the characters in the prologue again, which mean that the beginning of my "actual story" (Chapter 1) was less gripping. Far better, other authors advised me, to have flashbacks at relevant parts throughout the book (or just not have the extra insight). While it wouldn't be as exciting in one way, it would make the novel more cohesive as a whole. So my opinion now is to not use prologues unless you have a really, really good reason to, and can argue against all the good reasons NOT to use one.


----------



## Steerpike

As I said above, I think you have to give the reader more credit. There's no reason a gap in time between Chapter 1 and 2 should be any more disorienting or confusing to a reader than a gap in time between a prologue and Chapter 1. In either case, it simply takes the author making it clear that the gap has occurred.


----------



## Weaver

phillipsauthor said:


> My first (unpublished) novel used a prologue of that kind - a "happened a long time ago" brief scene that set things up for the entire novel. I really liked it: it was exciting, full of action, and promised dark things to come. The problem that was pointed out to me, however, was that it made the characters in my prologue were immediately the characters to whom readers became attached. It was confusing to readers, I was told, to have to wait until halfway through the book to hear about the characters in the prologue again, which mean that the beginning of my "actual story" (Chapter 1) was less gripping. Far better, other authors advised me, to have flashbacks at relevant parts throughout the book (or just not have the extra insight). While it wouldn't be as exciting in one way, it would make the novel more cohesive as a whole. So my opinion now is to not use prologues unless you have a really, really good reason to, and can argue against all the good reasons NOT to use one.



I can see how that would be a problem, if the characters in the prologue don't show up again until halfway through the book.  (I had this problem in one of mine during the first run, although it was only chapter 7 before the character from the first chapter showed up again.  In the revisions, he got a much more active role, much sooner.)   That's a problem with that particular story, though, not with some innate trait of prologues.


----------



## phillipsauthor

I agree, Steerpike. The problems aren't because it's "Prologue" vs. "Chapter 1" instead of "Chapter 1" vs. "Chapter 2." It isn't the time gap that's confusing per se - it's the switch from one MC to another, or from one expected plot to another. Just like it isn't expected practice for an author to feature one character in Chapter 1, then abandon him until the middle of the book, or to set the first chapter in the Middle Ages and the second in the future, it's jarring for a reader to see this happen from a prologue to the main text of the book. The question remains, "How do these fit together?" That's what can be confusing or difficult for the reader, no matter how well the jump is narrated by the author.


----------



## Ankari

I'm a fan of prologues. This debate has been going on since I joined these forums. Slowly, I've come to understand why a prologue should rarely be used. If you're writing a story set in a modern time, but want to write a prologue to show what happened 100/1,000/10,000 years ago, that is back story. Find a way to insert it into the story through setting or dialogue.

Currently, I'm of the opinion that prologues should be used to tie books of a series together. A recap of previous events so the reader doesn't have to reread all of the previous books to keep up with the current book.


----------



## skip.knox

Anything good can be done badly. Prologues aren't intrinsically good or intrinsically bad.

What happens with me as a reader is I'm looking to engage with the story. Far too often, the prologue has one of two effects on me. One, if it's the History of the World kind of prologue, I simply don't get engaged. There's no immediacy, no conflict, just backstory.

Two, a character does engage me. These are usually prologues that center on a specific event. I get drawn in to the drama. Then I turn the page and it's Chapter One, and none of those characters are on stage any more. As a reader, I have to start again. It feels, regardless of what the author intended, very much like a "and then he woke up" kind of story. I thought it was about one thing, but now it's about something else.

As a writer, I totally get it. I find myself drawn to writing prologues, especially because I have a created world in which I've written multiple stories and I really want the reader to know that all these stories take place in the same world. I have to keep reminding me that the reader isn't here for the world, he's here for the story. So far, none of my prologues have made it to the finish line.


----------



## Maria0Vee

Ankari said:


> I'm a fan of prologues. This debate has been going on since I joined these forums. Slowly, I've come to understand why a prologue should rarely be used. If you're writing a story set in a modern time, but want to write a prologue to show what happened 100/1,000/10,000 years ago, that is back story. Find a way to insert it into the story through setting or dialogue.
> 
> Currently, I'm of the opinion that prologues should be used to tie books of a series together. A recap of previous events so the reader doesn't have to reread all of the previous books to keep up with the current book.





Ankari said:


> I'm a fan of prologues. This debate has been going on since I joined these forums. Slowly, I've come to understand why a prologue should rarely be used. If you're writing a story set in a modern time, but want to write a prologue to show what happened 100/1,000/10,000 years ago, that is back story. Find a way to insert it into the story through setting or dialogue.
> 
> Currently, I'm of the opinion that prologues should be used to tie books of a series together. A recap of previous events so the reader doesn't have to reread all of the previous books to keep up with the current book.


I am writing a book abut a girl from NYC. I have decided to discribe the five boroughs and interesting neighborhood's in each one. What the touristy spots are about each one. A breif bit about each place like who lives there and other bits of info. This way when I mention Riverdale or Williamsburg, you can get an idea or image in your head as to where it is and what it may look like. Can this be a Prologue? would help get people to go back while reading so they can say where is Gramercy Park? Then the first chapter would be the beging of the main character's life. Where she is and how she got back there. then you meet the other characters as the book and chapters continue. would that be good for many who have never known or lived in NYC?


----------



## Maria0Vee

Ankari said:


> I'm a fan of prologues. This debate has been going on since I joined these forums. Slowly, I've come to understand why a prologue should rarely be used. If you're writing a story set in a modern time, but want to write a prologue to show what happened 100/1,000/10,000 years ago, that is back story. Find a way to insert it into the story through setting or dialogue.
> 
> Currently, I'm of the opinion that prologues should be used to tie books of a series together. A recap of previous events so the reader doesn't have to reread all of the previous books to keep up with the current book.


----------



## Maria0Vee

I am currently writing a book about NYC. I wanted to add a prologue to the book to make things easier for the readers. I wanted to discribe the five boroughs and the interesting neighborhoods in each one. What torristy things are in each for people to visit. This way when I mention Gramercy Park or Williamsburg people can imagine the people and know it's location. Giving them an idea of things. In case they have never been to NYC or have lived there. Should I place it before chapter one or scratch the whole idea? Then chapter one would begin withy main character. How she is doing, where she lives and how she got there. The rest of the characters will fillow as the book goes along. First time writing a book. Nervous about it all since I didn't go to school for literature, writing or journalism. Would preform a professional oppinion.


----------



## Insolent Lad

Maria0Vee said:


> I am currently writing a book about NYC. I wanted to add a prologue to the book to make things easier for the readers.


I suspect that is just the sort of prologue reader do skip over. Get to the story. If you want to include that sort of info, you _could_ put it at the back and just let readers know it's there if they are interested. Or skip it and let them Google NYC.


----------

