# An argument for a Prologue



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 15, 2017)

First, I will preface this: It is often best not to have a traditional worldbuilding prologue (not speaking of chapter prologues, like GRRM has) in the novel, the info is best twined through the book proper. 

I read the "sample" of _The Warded Man _a couple times thinking about buying it, mainly as a possible comp for my WIP. So, I broke down and bought it, and right after the sample Brett goes into the age old story teller giving us the history of the world setup, in this case, the demon corelings and their relationship with humans.

My eyes just glaze over. I would rather the author just hit me with a prologue up front than stop the story to tell me a story. It would take fewer words and get it over with. Then, no need to break my flow in the story while reading later.

So, if the writer decides they can't weave in the history in small doses, which do you prefer? Obvious info dumps framed as story tellers, or whatever, or a quick, succinct prologue?


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 15, 2017)

I put that same book down because I thought it was boring. Had it been in a prologue I might have done the same, or maybe just skipped the prologue to see if the author could actually tell a story or not.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 15, 2017)

Yeah, what I'd do is skip forward and if at some point I'd decided to read the book, I'd go check out the prologue, LOL. Rothfuss is boring in this way in exponential degrees, heh heh.

Since I paid for it, I'll at least try to read it.



Steerpike said:


> I put that same book down because I thought it was boring. Had it been in a prologue I might have done the same, or maybe just skipped the prologue to see if the author could actually tell a story or not.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 15, 2017)

If knowing the creation myth or whatever is essential for the story, then yes, I'd rather have a prologue infodump it to me than interrupt the story with it a few pages in. 

If it's not essential immediately, probably the best thing would be to infodump it later, like sometime during the second act. So I'm already invested in the story and i'm not interrupted in getting situated.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 15, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> So, if the writer decides they can't weave in the history in small doses, which do you prefer? Obvious info dumps framed as story tellers, or whatever, or a quick, succinct prologue?



Well it really depends, doesn't it?

Isn't it odd that the draw of a fantasy or sci-fi world is....the world, heh, but people get so worked up about infodumps that give us a view of that world? 

I'm tempted to say that if your world is rather boring or cliche, please don't dump it on me, neither in the prologue or early after the story has started. Don't tell me about the number of farms surrounding the city, the types of crops, the farming tools, if these aren't strange and wonderful in some glorious way. Please.

I seem to remember Douglas Adams doing this sometimes, breaking to give us a view of the silly and absurd world. Comedy helps.

There is also the issue of making the world relevant in some way. If it's simply strange, that might not be enough, and a prologue might be worse than a story break after some interesting character and event involving that character have been introduced. If the dump throws a lot of interesting light on that character or event, maybe I'd rather it happen within the story.

I don't know. Depends.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 15, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Yeah, what I'd do is skip forward and if at some point I'd decided to read the book, I'd go check out the prologue, LOL. Rothfuss is boring in this way in exponential degrees, heh heh.
> 
> Since I paid for it, I'll at least try to read it.



I know others who feel the same way about Rothfuss. Name of the Wind actually held my interest all the way through. Haven’t read the rest of the books yet.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 15, 2017)

Weird how that works, isn't it?



Steerpike said:


> I know others who feel the same way about Rothfuss. Name of the Wind actually held my interest all the way through. Haven’t read the rest of the books yet.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 15, 2017)

Almost nothing is ever 100%. But so often, as is the case with Warded Man, I just don't see why not to dribble out the info during the plot rather than breaking into a history lesson. I'm sure it's arguable in all directions, but in this case I was quite annoyed coming right after the sample pages, heh heh.

Now, I can also defend (potentially) the storyteller infodump if it turns out to be inaccurate... although, it could still be better served dripped instead of dumped.

I did a flash-forward preface at the behest of my editor, but what I did was to take full advantage and feed the reader information that no POV character knows



FifthView said:


> Well it really depends, doesn't it?
> 
> Isn't it odd that the draw of a fantasy or sci-fi world is....the world, heh, but people get so worked up about infodumps that give us a view of that world?
> 
> ...


----------



## FifthView (Jul 15, 2017)

The problem I've had with worldbuilding prologues is that they give information out of context. This could be a bias of mine. In high school, I remember being absolutely bored learning facts, having to memorize exact dates and names, in history class as if these were the most important data points. But I love history when it's done well. Ken Burns's _The Civil War_ might be the best documentary ever made; at least, it's my favorite. Because it's not just about facts, dates, the name of a law that was passed, etc. History is (or at least was) life, lives being lived. So the kind of prologue that becomes a dry history lesson about people and events that happen, just pushing forward the base facts, bores me. I was actually a little bored by that portion in yours, but it was short enough and offered a little more besides. If the facts themselves are odd and unusual, my attention might be held.

But too often that kind of a prologue is the "I'm just going to put this here because it'll become important later" sort of thing. Sometimes, the later is _much_ later. Also, sometimes I get the impression that these tidbits are important to the author, but he's simply failed to make them important to me.

Edit: I suppose the same experience would happen with an infodump within the story, with that same kind of info. In which case, sure, put it at front rather than break into the story, heh.



Demesnedenoir said:


> Almost nothing is ever 100%. But so often, as is the case with Warded Man, I just don't see why not to dribble out the info during the plot rather than breaking into a history lesson. I'm sure it's arguable in all directions, but in this case I was quite annoyed coming right after the sample pages, heh heh.
> 
> Now, I can also defend (potentially) the storyteller infodump if it turns out to be inaccurate... although, it could still be better served dripped instead of dumped.
> 
> I did a flash-forward preface at the behest of my editor, but what I did was to take full advantage and feed the reader information that no POV character knows


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 15, 2017)

I certainly believe in short as possible. Ideally, I'd leave it out, but the editor thinks it serves a purpose. And, as often as you see info dumps in one form or another (as opposed to info dribbles, which I try to do) they must not be as disliked as we tend to think. I know trying to reread Sword of Shannara once, I hit the info-duuuump and about choked. It's good I read that book when I was young, heh heh. I had more patience then.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 15, 2017)

I've thought of mentioning in other threads, on other topics, that I don't need to be sitting on the edge of my seat every moment of every novel. I guess this is like sitting on a porch during sunrise sipping on a cup of coffee: I don't need a battle happening in front of me, heh, or some kind of zombie horde rising from the ground, or a family argument happening out on the lawn.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 15, 2017)

OP, are you trying to figure out if your prologue should be kept in? What does your gut tell you? Editors aren't always right and by no means am I saying not to listen. But the times I've kept stuff in, readers have responded favorably when editors said "nope." Just a thought. If you think it adds to the flavor, ambience, depth of the story and it's short, I'd say it's worth considering.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 15, 2017)

Not really, I'm good with it even if I fought it, LOL. It adds a certain something that wouldn't otherwise exist. The story works with or without, but it gives a depth of story feel and raises questions that otherwise might not get raised. I brought it up more because of the anti-prologue bias that seems to exist out there, and hell, I'm a part of that. But in some cases, I can see the justification. It's a hypothetical, if you feel you must info dump, is it better to get it over with in prologue or in some (probably) overused tactic to dump in media res? So to speak. 



Aurora said:


> OP, are you trying to figure out if your prologue should be kept in? What does your gut tell you? Editors aren't always right and by no means am I saying not to listen. But the times I've kept stuff in, readers have responded favorably when editors said "nope." Just a thought. If you think it adds to the flavor, ambience, depth of the story and it's short, I'd say it's worth considering.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 15, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Not really, I'm good with it even if I fought it, LOL. It adds a certain something that wouldn't otherwise exist. The story works with or without, but it gives a depth of story feel and raises questions that otherwise might not get raised. I brought it up more because of the anti-prologue bias that seems to exist out there, and hell, I'm a part of that. But in some cases, I can see the justification. It's a hypothetical, if you feel you must info dump, is it better to get it over with in prologue or in some (probably) overused tactic to dump in media res? So to speak.


Ah, see. I happen to think that info dumps are a no-no ever ever ever. Such information is best weaved into the narrative, brought in through dialogue, character motivation, and even plot events. If there's an ever urgent need to info dump at all, chances are that dump (heh  oop: ) can be changed into an actual scene. Just my cents FWIW.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 15, 2017)

For myself:

'Labyrinth: Journal' is just that - a story told in journal form.  However, it does have a prologue and epilogue outside that format, dealing with the journal coming into the characters possession, and what he does after reading it.

Prologue: character finds journal
Journal: main story
Epilogue: what actions the character takes as a result of reading the journal. (this is also the first chapter of the next book).  

Then there is the 'Empire' series.  This is a collection of interlinked novellas or short novels detailing the highly local/personal adventures of four characters, within a larger setting.  Thing is, characters and events from that larger setting intrude upon the these tales.  The more crucial of the characters and events are covered in short stories I wrote beforehand.  Hence, I am contemplating using some of these short stories as prologues, to put the events of the novellas in context.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 15, 2017)

*side musing: Have you ever noticed how almost all Disney movies start with a backstory prologue? This was hit home to me when I watched the new Beauty and the Beast (four times *cough cough* in two days). Then I watched Moana a bunch of times with my kid and it was the same history info dump prologue. Sometimes it is just necessary. 

Back to fiction. 

I don't get the prologue hate. We had this discussion recently I think. About half the books I read have them. They work. Sometimes they are boring, but like FV says, there is more to fiction than fast passed action ever five seconds... unless that is your schtick. In which case, good for you. 

God. Has anyone read Life of Pi? That book was soooooo boring for the first third, but great story once it got going.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 15, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> God. Has anyone read Life of Pi? That book was soooooo boring for the first third, but great story once it got going.



My friend keeps trying to make me read that...

But yeah, I really don't understand why infodumping is so deeply and widely reviled. It's not like they are *never* necessary. Sometimes an infodump really is better than dropping info in little bits and snippets. Infodumping where it's not necessary is a hallmark of an inexperienced fantasy writer, but that doesn't mean infodumps are all bad. 

I guess if you hold on too tight to any rule of writing, you can potentially hurt your story.


----------



## ThinkerX (Jul 15, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> *side musing: Have you ever noticed how almost all Disney movies start with a backstory prologue? This was hit home to me when I watched the new Beauty and the Beast (four times *cough cough* in two days). Then I watched Moana a bunch of times with my kid and it was the same history info dump prologue. Sometimes it is just necessary.
> 
> Back to fiction.
> 
> ...



1 - Movies are a very different format than text.  What works in a movie will likely flop in a book.

2 - Disney movies are hugely successful.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 15, 2017)

DragonOfTheAerie said:


> My friend keeps trying to make me read that...
> 
> But yeah, I really don't understand why infodumping is so deeply and widely reviled. It's not like they are *never* necessary. Sometimes an infodump really is better than dropping info in little bits and snippets. *Infodumping where it's not necessary is a hallmark of an inexperienced fantasy writer*, but that doesn't mean infodumps are all bad.
> 
> I guess if you hold on too tight to any rule of writing, you can potentially hurt your story.


It depends on the type of storyteller you want to be and your audience. Does infodumping add to your story? Or does it slow the narrative? If it slows the narrative why is it there? Story forward is the goal. As for the bolded bit in your post, I absolutely agree that infodumping (although for me in general) is the sign of a writer struggling with story. Nothing negative, just that they're still growing in their craft.

As a side note, I do enjoy prologues and most often read them. Rarely do I find that they don't belong there. Honestly, I don't care. If the author wants it there, then I'll read it. I do not hate prologues. I do, however, find that when a reader opens an ebook on Kindle it automatically opens to Chapter 1, missing the prologue or anything before it entirely. This is a discussion I've had with author friends in recent times. There's a way to switch it so the story opens to the prologue or acknowledgement but readers don't seem to want to read anything before Chapter 1. It makes me sad because I enjoy putting poetry and a monster legend at the beginning of my books.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 15, 2017)

Aurora said:


> Or does it slow the narrative? If it slows the narrative why is it there? Story forward is the goal.



That's a good question. I do think that the info dump dropped into the narrative ought to do something other than simply provide info. I also strongly believe that the reader should always experience a sense of progress.

But slowing the narrative down might be a part of what the info dump is meant to do. Progress, forward movement, may happen even when it's not full speed ahead. I actually think that some kinds of stories work better when the pacing is varied.

I think that dropping an info dump is a little like inserting a flashback. I've disliked most flashbacks I've encountered. (In books and television, both.) Often, a flashback is used to tell some part of the history of a character, so comparing world-building history infodumps to flashbacks makes sense. Flashbacks work best when they shed some new light on a character for the reader—or shed light _for_ the character, in the case of characters who take that remembered info and have their perspective on current events altered in a meaningful way. (I think Shyamalan's _Signs_ did a great job of this.) For a mid-narrative info dump, I'd look for something similar, a new perspective on things that have just happened and/or that are about to happen. The sense of progress in this case is a sense of having gained new information about the story and character, information that will alter how we look at things going forward; it's not much different than other types of reveal, in this case.

But the flashbacks I've hated most, in books, are those that happen as the climax is winding up, or during extended tension-filled events, and I'm on pins and needles. I groan, literally out loud often enough, and feel a little angry that my experience has been so interrupted.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 15, 2017)

^^Actually, Best Served Cold by Joe Abercrombie has fascinating flashbacks. It truly works in that story and gave it a richer context.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 15, 2017)

> I get the impression that these tidbits are important to the author, but he's simply failed to make them important to me.

Absolutely this. An infodump happens when the reader decides that he's no longer interested in the information being presented. Otherwise, it's fascinating detail, right? 

IOW, "infodump" is simply a sub-species of bad writing. There's nothing wrong with telling the reader about your world. There are lots of ways to do this. Choose one. *shrug* Choose five. But for all love write it well!


----------



## Ruru (Jul 15, 2017)

For me, it seems to come back to how well a prologue is done, and what it's for. 

I really enjoy world building, and so I enjoy reading info dump prologues that tell about the world of the story, so long as the information feels like it will be relevant. The start of the story is definitely the place for this however, in my opinion at least. Especially if it is information that the reader can use to immerse in the story more fully.

Prologues that are snip-its of another story line that isn't visited properly until later can be good, particularly as a way of forming a bit of a cliff hanger to keep the reader drawn in. 

For myself, my current WIP has a prologue. Its less than 600 words long and is written as an extract from a piece of writing within the story. It exists solely to explain something to the reader that is meant to be common knowledge among my characters, the idea being the characters wouldn't talk about this thing, or think about it, because its something that just _is_. I've tried to write it in (drip feed it I mean), but it needs to be explained early on an all my attempts at this halted any flow I'd managed to achieve.


----------



## Rkcapps (Jul 15, 2017)

There is definitely a trend against prologues and I can see why, but mostly I've seen them well done i.e. there is a portent, or important part of history that will become relevant in the story, or something about the world is relevant to the story and enriches it. I look for the reveal and connection as to why the prologue is important. I want it and if it's there I enjoy a prologue. 

Back in the 1980s, I read David Eddings and recall his prologue worked. I don't recall it to be an info dump but that was 25 years ago. I'm vague. I may not think the same today but I was 20. 20 year old's tolerate more so if that's your target audience too and it works, go for it.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 15, 2017)

If a prologue is very short and dumping info I may not care too much. It's over and done with quickly. But even for common knowledge in the world I feel there are generally better ways than prologues.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 16, 2017)

Aurora said:


> It depends on the type of storyteller you want to be and your audience. Does infodumping add to your story? Or does it slow the narrative? If it slows the narrative why is it there? Story forward is the goal. As for the bolded bit in your post, I absolutely agree that infodumping (although for me in general) is the sign of a writer struggling with story. Nothing negative, just that they're still growing in their craft.
> 
> As a side note, I do enjoy prologues and most often read them. Rarely do I find that they don't belong there. Honestly, I don't care. If the author wants it there, then I'll read it. I do not hate prologues. I do, however, find that when a reader opens an ebook on Kindle it automatically opens to Chapter 1, missing the prologue or anything before it entirely. This is a discussion I've had with author friends in recent times. There's a way to switch it so the story opens to the prologue or acknowledgement but readers don't seem to want to read anything before Chapter 1. It makes me sad because I enjoy putting poetry and a monster legend at the beginning of my books.



I suppose my meaning is that sometimes infodumps serve the story better than scattering bits of important info like breadcrumbs. Over-reluctance to infodump can sometimes lead to a very long and drawn-out relief to a case of the where-the-heck-are-we's. Sometimes it's better to just get the important stuff out of the way rather than spread it through the narrative. Not always or most of the time, but sometimes.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 16, 2017)

I wrestled with having a prologue for _Goblins at the Gates_. It consists of a single scout seeing the goblin horde. The goblins run him down at the end of the chapter, which is only about 3k.

If I make this Chapter One, there's a natural expectation that this scout is the hero of the book, so his death would be disorienting. I need the scene because the goblins do not appear until several chapters into the book. Seeing them at the opening lets the reader know this is fantasy, despite all the Roman legion stuff that follows.

That's why I choose to make it a prologue.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 16, 2017)

ThinkerX said:


> 1 - Movies are a very different format than text.  What works in a movie will likely flop in a book.
> 
> 2 - Disney movies are hugely successful.



Dude, that's why I said "side musing" and "back to fiction". Obviously movies are different that text. 

I was defending Disney, and made it obvious I was a huge Disney fan. Yes they are hugely successful. And they use prologues.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Jul 16, 2017)

I think the reason I don't use prologues is that my books' lore is often veiled or hidden, and discovered by the protagonist later in the story. It makes sense that i'd want the reader to share in the revealing or discovery.  

And I don't often have to show a scene that's necessary to the plot that can't seamlessly be made Chapter One.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 16, 2017)

I think this might be what my editor thought, basically. Although in hindsight, I wasn't dripping fast enough and it left confusion for her reading the book so other readers would've been worse off in many cases, LOL. This probably ties into he way I (and so many writers) don't make things obvious enough because the we know what's going on. The infodump can also serve to set the world and story apart, point out a few things that make the story world different, which might not be obvious otherwise until further into a book.



DragonOfTheAerie said:


> I suppose my meaning is that sometimes infodumps serve the story better than scattering bits of important info like breadcrumbs. Over-reluctance to infodump can sometimes lead to a very long and drawn-out relief to a case of the where-the-heck-are-we's. Sometimes it's better to just get the important stuff out of the way rather than spread it through the narrative. Not always or most of the time, but sometimes.


----------



## Malik (Jul 16, 2017)

My argument for the prologue is that it's usually misused. Many fantasy authors -- especially new ones -- don't understand the point of the prologue; I think they just see that other books have prologues, so they put one in, figuring that their book needs one, too. This is how we ended up with so many shitty prologues.

In epic fantasy, the world has to be changed by the characters' actions. That's what, by definition, makes it epic. If the characters are just muddling about in a fantasy world and getting in adventures without world-rocking consequences, you're writing high fantasy. Which is also fine. 

But the prologue is not backstory. In epic fantasy, the world is a separate character. The prologue is a scene introducing the world as that character, so that we can tell how much it has changed at the end of the book. The world will interact with the other characters, and will go through its own arc through the story.

If you're not writing epic fantasy, don't write a prologue. 

More on this here.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 16, 2017)

Why would the world/setting as a character need a prologue any more than any other character?


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 16, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Although in hindsight, I wasn't dripping fast enough and it left confusion for her reading the book so other readers would've been worse off in many cases, LOL.



Is it the speed or some other factor? Steven Erikson, for example, actually tells you very little about the world. The reader is tossed into it and left to sink or swim. It's less a drip than a dry faucet you might be able to get the occasional film of moisture out of if you stick your finger far enough in.


----------



## Malik (Jul 16, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Why would the world/setting as a character need a prologue any more than any other character?



It doesn't, and that's the problem. Characters don't need extensive, four-page info-dumpy backstories, and neither does the world. The prologue is just the world's introductory scene; it tells us about the world, as a character, at the beginning of the book. Nothing more.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 16, 2017)

Malik said:


> It doesn't, and that's the problem. Characters don't need extensive, four-page info-dumpy backstories, and neither does the world. The prologue is just the world's introductory scene; it tells us about the world, as a character, at the beginning of the book. Nothing more.



Ah, yes I see. I misread your post. My mistake.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 16, 2017)

_Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventur'd piteous overthrows
Doth, with their death, bury their parents’ strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents’ rage,
Which, but their children's end, naught could remove,
Is now the two hours’ traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend._​
So the going advice is to avoid doing something like this as a prologue or intro to the world, characters, and story.

Just dump the characters head-first into the story and let the reader sort it out.

But I'm not at all against this sort of thing if it works for the story. If it's short. To set the stage. Chances are fairly decent that this info is going to be in the blurb anyway. So why use it within the book? For the same reasons, heh.

Maybe the advice not to use a prologue that does these things arises from the desire in readers to "figure it out" and the assumption of advice-givers that all readers like being dumped head-first into the story with the characters. There's a certain omniscience implied in such an intro, insofar as readers are being given info outside the heads of characters; maybe the modern taste for limited POVs leads to a certain habit of appreciation and enjoyment springing from the head-first experience.

The advice might also be given out of a knowledge of how terribly wrong such prologues can go; I mean, the numerous bad examples.

But I think there's merit in setting the stage if the intro is well written. Primarily, this orients a reader, may hook a reader with promises, and this can help if the first two or three chapters don't fast track the plot. 

In _Romeo and Juliet_, Act 1 Scene 1 starts with some random Montagues and Capulets encountering each other on the street,  a fight brews, Romeo's and Juliet's parents join the squabble, until the Prince arrives. Then all leave except Romeo's parents and Benvolio, his friend. They ask Benvolio where Romeo is, Benvolio's seen him but as usual lately Romeo's been moping about and not wanting company. But Romeo appears, and Benvolio tells the parents to leave, so he can talk to Romeo friend-to-friend to see what's up. Romeo goes on and on about Rosaline, and love, and his despair. Romeo doesn't meet Juliet until the fifth and final scene in the first act; the second act starts with him outside the wall to the garden, and the two don't have that famous scene in the garden until the second scene of Act 2. So there's a lot of setup as the characters and world are introduced. The prologue gives the viewer context for these by introducing the conflict and the fact that this is a tragic romance that's about to be told.

Imagine without the prologue, walking in to the play with no knowledge of it: The families' brawling, the wondering where Romeo is (_not_ involved in the brawling), his introduction talking about some lost love, i.e. his mind not on the feuding between the families...The viewer might think this is going to be a play about street warfare between these two families and, until Juliet is introduced, wondering how Romeo's going to figure heavily in that battle! With the prologue, the viewer can interpret what's happening until Romeo and Juliet meet at the end of the act (will have the context) and may be waiting a bit on the edge of the seat to see how that romance will start amidst such conflict.

So this for me is just a general example of how such a prologue might be useful. I suspect Demesnedenoir's story might have required that kind of drip-drip of characters, milieu, etc., in the first chapters, and his editor thought an intro to the story was required for this reason.

I'd still say keep such an intro short and sweet. Plus, it doesn't hurt to have some personality behind that intro, someone speaking it, heh. The R&J intro is a chorus intro (outside narrator), and D's has a first person speaker (that may or may not be speaking to the reader...at first!) This gives the feeling of importance; such a speaker must feel the info is important enough to tell. I've been thinking of doing something similar with my WIP, but in the form of an excerpt of a letter written about five years after the events of the book, from and to individuals who didn't actually participate in the events.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 16, 2017)

FifthView said:


> ​In _Romeo and Juliet_, Act 1 Scene 1 starts with some random Montagues and Capulets encountering each other on the street,  a fight brews, Romeo's and Juliet's parents join the squabble, until the Prince arrives. Then all leave except Romeo's parents and Benvolio, his friend. They ask Benvolio where Romeo is, Benvolio's seen him but as usual lately Romeo's been moping about and not wanting company. But Romeo appears, and Benvolio tells the parents to leave, so he can talk to Romeo friend-to-friend to see what's up. Romeo goes on and on about Rosaline, and love, and his despair. Romeo doesn't meet Juliet until the fifth and final scene in the first act; the second act starts with him outside the wall to the garden, and the two don't have that famous scene in the garden until the second scene of Act 2. So there's a lot of setup as the characters and world are introduced. The prologue gives the viewer context for these by introducing the conflict and the fact that this is a tragic romance that's about to be told.
> 
> Imagine without the prologue, walking in to the play with no knowledge of it: The families' brawling, the wondering where Romeo is (_not_ involved in the brawling), his introduction talking about some lost love...The viewer might think this is going to be a play about street warfare between these two families and, until Juliet is introduced, wondering how Romeo's going to figure heavily in that battle! With the prologue, the viewer can interpret what's happening until Romeo and Juliet meet at the end of the act (will have the context) and may be waiting a bit on the edge of the seat to see how that romance will start amidst such conflict.
> 
> ...



The analogy is stronger the more the two things being compared are similar, at least with respect to the characteristic being analogized. I think they're quite different here. In a play, you lack all of the tools a novel writer has to get this information, effectively, into the story proper. If you don't have the chorus give this background information, then what? You'd be stuck with some lame dialogue between two characters telling each other what they should already know. With a play, which is meant to be seen on stage, you have a more limited tool set to work with. This is, to me, to most effective way to set the stage (so to speak) in a play format, whereas if Romeo and Juliet were being written for the first time as a novel there would be no reason to do this. You could very easily convey this limited amount of background information within the very first scene, where Benvolio, Tybalt, and the random nobodies are fighting.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 16, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> The analogy is stronger the more the two things being compared are similar, at least with respect to the characteristic being analogized. I think they're quite different here. In a play, you lack all of the tools a novel writer has to get this information, effectively, into the story proper. If you don't have the chorus give this background information, then what? You'd be stuck with some lame dialogue between two characters telling each other what they should already know. With a play, which is meant to be seen on stage, you have a more limited tool set to work with. This is, to me, to most effective way to set the stage (so to speak) in a play format, whereas if Romeo and Juliet were being written for the first time as a novel there would be no reason to do this. You could very easily convey this limited amount of background information within the very first scene, where Benvolio, Tybalt, and the random nobodies are fighting.



Well, no, you do have the option to introduce this early in a play. Just have Romeo and Juliet meet in the first scene, have attraction, and, like the scene at the ball, the eventual realization that OMG they're from two warring families. You could maybe even have family members show up, interrupting them, and a brawl breaking out, until the Prince arrives. And the "Wherefore art thou romeo?" spoken at the end as the sides are being split up.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 16, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Well, no, you do have the option to introduce this early in a play. Just have Romeo and Juliet meet in the first scene, have attraction, and, like the scene at the ball, the eventual realization that OMG they're from two warring families. You could maybe even have family members show up, interrupting them, and a brawl breaking out, until the Prince arrives. And the "Wherefore art thou romeo?" spoken at the end as the sides are being split up.



Sure, you could always restructure the play or change your mind about whether the viewer needs the information. But if you want to stick with this opening and want the reader to have information upfront, options are more limited than with a novel. If one were writing this as a novel, there would be no reason for a prologue. 

The only good argument for a prologue I've really heard is "I'm the author and this is a stylistic choice I'm making." Ok. Perfectly valid. Follow your vision for the work. Why not acknowledge it as what it is--a choice among stylistic possibilities.  Everything beyond that seems to be an attempt to rationalize the choice. I see a lot of "I need a prologue" from new writers. No, you don't. Doesn't mean you can't have one, but if you think it is necessary you* don't understand the other options. 

*Generic "you," not any specific person in this thread or elsewhere.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 16, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Sure, you could always restructure the play or change your mind about whether the viewer needs the information. But if you want to stick with this opening and want the reader to have information upfront, options are more limited than with a novel. If one were writing this as a novel, there would be no reason for a prologue.
> 
> The only good argument for a prologue I've really heard is "I'm the author and this is a stylistic choice I'm making." Ok. Perfectly valid. Follow your vision for the work. Why not acknowledge it as what it is--a choice among stylistic possibilities.  Everything beyond that seems to be an attempt to rationalize the choice. I see a lot of "I need a prologue" from new writers. No, you don't. Doesn't mean you can't have one, but if you think it is necessary you* don't understand the other options.
> 
> *Generic "you," not any specific person in this thread or elsewhere.



Sure, and you don't _need_ to not have a prologue?

I think that examining why Shakespeare might have made the choice he made might illuminate other factors besides stylistic choices.

I don't know precisely what those factors are at this point, but I think it has something to do with focus. If the play had been written in the alt-style, pushing Juliet's and Romeo's meeting to the first scene, then I think that maybe the whole play would be focused on that relationship. But I think that maybe the milieu, the family strife, social conflict is as much the focus as the romance. To put this another way, if the viewer was introduced to that budding romance in the first scene in the way I described it, then all the conflict would be background information to that romance. Romeo and Juliet would have needed to wade through it, sure, like trying to cross a marshland (i.e., any other environmental factor.) This is also how I've experienced a lot of fantasy: Sure, there's a fantasy world with lots of interesting things in it, even social conflict, but that's background to the character's goals and conflicts. Drip-drip-dripping bits of info about the world kinda shunts that world to the background–or might. The world's only so important as it antagonizes or allies itself to the characters' paths. But I think we can say that R&J is just as much about that world as the romance.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 16, 2017)

I'll add a couple of other points.

Translating this into novel writing...I think that maybe the issue of focus isn't strictly an issue of whether the world in general is elevated. It may be different elements of a story. Particular conflcits, characters, whatever. Disparate elements of the story gaining somewhat equal focus early in the story, before these elements are explicitly brought together into the principle plot. Sometimes when I think of "milieu," I'm thinking of the whole lot.

The issue of stylistic choice bothers me when the implication is that "anything goes, always, in every case," and as if there's no particular reason to choose one approach over another. I tend to think in terms of techniques which achieve a particular effect, not rules. I do think that author choice plays a paramount role in deciding the story to tell and the effects desired. But once these are known, then deciding on techniques to achieve those goals means ruling out some techniques and choosing others that will best help in achieving those effects. 

So when thinking about prologues in general, different types of prologues, different ways to write the prologues, and different stories and effects, I wonder about their use as a technique. I do not believe they have no effective use.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 16, 2017)

FifthView said:


> Sure, and you don't _need_ to not have a prologue?
> 
> I think that examining why Shakespeare might have made the choice he made might illuminate other factors besides stylistic choices.
> 
> I don't know precisely what those factors are at this point, but I think it has something to do with focus. If the play had been written in the alt-style, pushing Juliet's and Romeo's meeting to the first scene, then I think that maybe the whole play would be focused on that relationship. But I think that maybe the milieu, the family strife, social conflict is as much the focus as the romance. To put this another way, if the viewer was introduced to that budding romance in the first scene in the way I described it, then all the conflict would be background information to that romance. Romeo and Juliet would have needed to wade through it, sure, like trying to cross a marshland (i.e., any other environmental factor.) This is also how I've experienced a lot of fantasy: Sure, there's a fantasy world with lots of interesting things in it, even social conflict, but that's background to the character's goals and conflicts. Drip-drip-dripping bits of info about the world kinda shunts that world to the background—or might. The world's only so important as it antagonizes or allies itself to the characters' paths. But I think we can say that R&J is just as much about that world as the romance.



This is exactly why he did it. 

Yay! My masters in literature is useful for once lo!!! 

Ok,so to understand why he did it you have to understand the expectations of drama at the time. At the time there were two categories of drama, comedy, and tragedy. Each had its own set of rules that had to be followed. 

Comedy had to end in a wedding (or multiple weddings) and had to end with everyone alive. Romance typically fell into this category. 

Tragedy had to have a huge fall, the bigger the better, and had to end in a whole cast of deaths. 

Viewers did not have a lot of money to spend on going to plays, so they needed to know exactly what they were seeing before they paid good money to see it. If they were disappointed by the play they would literally throw rotting food at the stage and the playwrite could never work again. Shakespeare was in trouble because Queen Elizabeth really, really, really liked his plays. That was a lot of pressure! 

Romeo and Juliet was risky because he was subverting the expectations of what "romance" typically was. There was to be no big wedding at the end, and the lovers were going to kill themsleve. It had the potential to be a professional disaster for poor old Billy. The last thing he needed was people watching the thing thinking it was going to be a romance. So he wrote the prologue as a sort of disclaimer. "This is not a romance, people! It is a family drama about society and expectations and the lovers are going to kill themselves at the end." 

That way any spectators who didn't want to stay could still go out the gates and possibly get their money back before they ruined his stage with mouldy cabbages. 


The entire first act reinforces the theme of "family drama" and the prince with his laws to beat it in to the viewer that "this is not just a romance, it's about society and family and expectations."

Nowadays, bad Amazon reviews are the equivalent to mouldy cabbages. We have to make it fairly clear early on in a novel what it is "about", and what the reader is to expect. Not keeping promises to the reader is still as big a deal in our time as it was in Shakespeare's. 

However, his "prologue" is really more of what we might consider the "inside cover blurb" in fiction. 
.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 16, 2017)

@Helio: Today's expectations aren't greatly dissimilar. Most advice for romance is to introduce the two principle characters very early, preferably in the first chapter. The book on m/m romance I read recently suggested that subgenres like fantasy and sci-fi might allow a little more delay as the world is being established, but you still want to introduce the two rather quickly. _IF_ that's what it's going to be, principally a romance tale.

And in general this reminds me of our discussion about the hook. Readers want to know what they are getting into, and the hook generally communicates the principle conflict, stakes, and characters: What's it going to be about, heh.

*Edit: And I see that as I was writing the above, you added much the same in an edit to yours, heh!


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 16, 2017)

FifthView said:


> @Helio: Today's expectations aren't greatly dissimilar. Most advice for romance is to introduce the two principle characters very early, preferably in the first chapter. The book on m/m romance I read recently suggested that subgenres like fantasy and sci-fi might allow a little more delay as the world is being established, but you still want to introduce the two rather quickly. _IF_ that's what it's going to be, principally a romance tale.
> 
> And in general this reminds me of our discussion about the hook. Readers want to know what they are getting into, and the hook generally communicates the principle conflict, stakes, and characters: What's it going to be about, heh.



This is exactly right. All modern romances (especially romantic comedies) still follow the strict outline used by the Greeks almost 2000 years ago. Most political tragedies (gang war stories,  fallen cop stories, et) follow the same rules as well. We haven't strayed too far in many ways, but we have added many more sub genres from other types of literature and story telling around the world. We now have options like "on the road" style stories, where a hero sets off on a quest to find whatever object it is that will satisfy his life. It started with Hercules and the Golden Fleece 2000 years ago, but "Vacation", "Lord of the Rings", "Star Wars", and "sisterhood of the travelling pants" all follow the same rules. 

And it is exactly what we were discussing about the "hook" and setting up reader expectations.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 16, 2017)

Yeah, and I think that looking at _Romeo and Juliet_ can show how different elements of the broader picture can be equalized; the story is about more than the romance.

Frank Herbert's intro in _Dune_, his Chapter One heading, begins by saying almost as much, heh:

_A beginning is the time for taking the most delicate care that the balances are correct...._



It's not a prologue, but it does reveal that this kid Paul we are about to meet goes on to become a subject worthy of a biography written by a princess, will be known as Muad'Dib, and tells us that this next chapter focusing on Caladan shouldn't deceive the reader:

_And take the most special care that you locate Muad'Dib in his place: the planet Arrakis. Do not be deceived by the fact that he was born on Caladan and lived his first fifteen years there. Arrakis, the planet known as Dune, is forever his place._

I really like this kind of thing, when it's done well. It hooks me, makes me look forward to seeing how all this will play out.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 16, 2017)

Malik said:


> In epic fantasy, the world has to be changed by the characters' actions. That's what, by definition, makes it epic. *If the characters are just muddling about in a fantasy world and getting in adventures without world-rocking consequences, you're writing high fantasy.*
> 
> But the prologue is not backstory. In epic fantasy, the world is a separate character. *The prologue is a scene introducing the world as that character, so that we can tell how much it has changed at the end of the book.* The world will interact with the other characters, and will go through its own arc through the story.
> 
> If you're not writing epic fantasy, don't write a prologue.


This is perhaps the clearest, most concise definition of the two. Thank you. I'd shout it out from the rooftops but my mouth is stuffed full of pineapple at the moment.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 16, 2017)

Erikson uses a chapter prologue, different beast than the traditional prologue, just to be clear. I can't comment much beyond that on Erikson because his writing and story telling make me long for the days of listening to the meandering tales of a college buddy's overpowered D&D campaigns. I find Erikson's writing even more boring. I give him credit for my making it as far as I did into Rothfuss' Name of the Wind, Erikson made Patrick look like a genius for a while, heh heh. Mind, this has nothing to do with Erikson's worldbuilding or anything else, I prefer being dropped into a world blind. 

I believe it was a combo of speed and clarity... I tend toward faith in the reader figuring things out, and my editor wisely pushes me toward clarification. A recent example this past week was a distraction which is also a clue to some important events in book 2. After haggling, it came down to make sure the event is remembered or at least sticks better in the reader's head. So, a compromise later, I've got my subtle clue buried in an obvious event, much better. The editor I tracked down is an ex-small publisher, and I'm damned glad to have found her. She's good.




Steerpike said:


> Is it the speed or some other factor? Steven Erikson, for example, actually tells you very little about the world. The reader is tossed into it and left to sink or swim. It's less a drip than a dry faucet you might be able to get the occasional film of moisture out of if you stick your finger far enough in.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 17, 2017)

I wonder if prologues in general play differently in other languages. If there's a cultural variable here.  Does anyone have any experience with this?


----------



## Heliotrope (Jul 17, 2017)

My favourite prologue, since we are discussing the topic, is the one for Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical "The Phantom of the Opera." 

For those who have never seen it, as an audience you walk into the opera house and it is all cobwebby and run down. The stage is filled with odds and ends and bits of furniture. They are auctioning everything off. The theatre is closing. As they move further into the auction they get to lot 666, a crystal chandelier that had been painstaking rebuilt. The auctioneer claims it is THE chandelier from the incident with The Phantom of the Opera. Is anyone familiar with the story of the phantom and what happened at the opera house (presumably the reason why it is closing?) he assumes not, the stage goes black and it reopens in act one, back in time, when th Opera house was in full swing. 

I love that prologue because it sets the tone and raises the story hook. It frames the entire story. And it's just plain creepy


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

I have been thinking of some of these as story frames. The sort that GRRM used in his first ASOIAF book was quite different. Also, so many of these examples do involve some kind of narrator speaking to an audience (whether viewer/reader or some other character), and this seems to help I think. It feels a part of the story. A dry series of historical facts without this would seem like an encyclopedia entry.



Heliotrope said:


> My favourite prologue, since we are discussing the topic, is the one for Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical "The Phantom of the Opera."
> 
> For those who have never seen it, as an audience you walk into the opera house and it is all cobwebby and run down. The stage is filled with odds and ends and bits of furniture. They are auctioning everything off. The theatre is closing. As they move further into the auction they get to lot 666, a crystal chandelier that had been painstaking rebuilt. The auctioneer claims it is THE chandelier from the incident with The Phantom of the Opera. Is anyone familiar with the story of the phantom and what happened at the opera house (presumably the reason why it is closing?) he assumes not, the stage goes black and it reopens in act one, back in time, when th Opera house was in full swing.
> 
> I love that prologue because it sets the tone and raises the story hook. It frames the entire story. And it's just plain creepy


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> The issue of stylistic choice bothers me when the implication is that "anything goes, always, in every case," and as if there's no particular reason to choose one approach over another. I tend to think in terms of techniques which achieve a particular effect, not rules. I do think that author choice plays a paramount role in deciding the story to tell and the effects desired. But once these are known, then deciding on techniques to achieve those goals means ruling out some techniques and choosing others that will best help in achieving those effects.



I don't know that the implication is necessarily there, but I'm not overly opposed to it. Ellen Kushner said something to the effect (paraphrasing) that you can do anything you want, so long as you seduce the reader into it. Said using your words, it's anything goes so long as you do it effectively. I agree with that point of view. I think critiques are best for helping a writer achieve her particular vision of a work, not for saying "oh, you can't do it that way."

Success in writing, or any other area of art, is less predictable than in other areas. You can be good at it and never get anywhere. I think that's why people gravitate toward rules--to try to place the illusion of more control around the whole endeavor. If I do x + y I'm going to get z. Of course, the techniques cast as rules have their uses, particularly with brand new writers, but when they go from "here's a way to effectively do what you have in mind" to "here's how you have to do this story" I think they're harmful. I don't see much of the latter here, particularly in comparison to some other writing forums. 

In any event, back to prologues. Certainly there are ways to write effective prologues. I don't think I've ever seen a "necessary" one, but stylistic choices are, by definition, a choice among options. Perhaps the primary argument for not using one is simply that so many people skip them, but that's more of a practical argument and not one that goes to the art itself. If an author really wants a prologue, if that's the vision for the work, so be it.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Erikson uses a chapter prologue, different beast than the traditional prologue, just to be clear. I can't comment much beyond that on Erikson because his writing and story telling make me long for the days of listening to the meandering tales of a college buddy's overpowered D&D campaigns. I find Erikson's writing even more boring. I give him credit for my making it as far as I did into Rothfuss' Name of the Wind, Erikson made Patrick look like a genius for a while, heh heh. Mind, this has nothing to do with Erikson's worldbuilding or anything else, I prefer being dropped into a world blind.



We have quite different tastes in literature, so I expect we'll come out crossways on a lot of these writing topics. I'd put Erikson's Malazan books in the top five fantasy series of the last 20 years. Not just for world-building, where Erikson pretty much outdoes everyone, but just for how much I enjoy reading them.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I think critiques are best for helping a writer achieve her particular vision of a work, not for saying "oh, you can't do it that way."



This is part of the problem. 

In the case of something posted to a forum, there's always the chance that the writer has failed to achieve her vision; so, how is anyone coming to that piece of work going to have a clue about what that vision _is_. How can we help her achieve it? Obviously, some things posted will more accurately convey the writer's vision in a persuasive, engaging, entertaining way, and might have only minor issues. But if I were to take all examples as accurately conveying the writer's vision, then I might be provoked into taking issue with that vision, heh, especially in the case of obviously weak or bad writing.

I do agree that the blanket "you can't do it that way," in which the critic is looking more at some supposed rule than the work in front of him, doesn't help much. But in an obviously close third person limited story, breaking the POV is precisely the sort of thing that might provoke a "you can't do it that way" sort of criticism. Maybe the softer criticism would be along the lines of, "You can either approach this story as omniscient, or you need to remove this bit of head-hopping." But that's the sort of thing I was thinking about vis-Ã -vis techniques that achieve a particular effect.

I think that when discussing these topics in the hypothetical sense, without a specific work before us, advice along the lines of "must have a prologue" or "must never use a prologue" approaches that kind of rules-based approach to criticism–either one.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> But in an obviously close third person limited story, breaking the POV is precisely the sort of thing that might provoke a "you can't do it that way" sort of criticism. Maybe the softer criticism would be along the lines of, "You can either approach this story as omniscient, or you need to remove this bit of head-hopping." But that's the sort of thing I was thinking about vis-Ã -vis techniques that achieve a particular effect.



Not to get too far afield, but this may get at some of the underlying disconnect, if there is any, in this discussion. I'm not sure what you've said above is absolutely true, so I wouldn't say someone needs to switch to omniscience or remove head-hopping. Certainly there are books with multiple close third-person points of view. The changes usually come at scene or chapter breaks, but they don't _have _to come there.

What happens most often when one comes across the kind of head-hopping you mention is that it is done poorly. In many cases, the writer seems to be doing it inadvertently. It comes across as amateurish. So, is it better to say "you can't do this unless you switch to an omniscience POV" or to simply point out what they've done and why it doesn't work in that particular case?

I suppose this could really be a separate thread on how to critique. I agree that you can't always tell what the author's vision is, but you can ask, or else qualify the critique with whatever your understanding of that vision happens to be.


----------



## Russ (Jul 17, 2017)

Malik said:


> But the prologue is not backstory. In epic fantasy, the world is a separate character. The prologue is a scene introducing the world as that character, so that we can tell how much it has changed at the end of the book. The world will interact with the other characters, and will go through its own arc through the story




I agree that many prologues are misused, but I don't think that "setting as character" is a sound reasoning for having a prologue.

Every other character is the book is usually introduced through the normal  narrative, why should setting be any different?  If you believe in setting as character (and I surely do), there is no reason to info dump on setting any more than character history.


----------



## FifthView (Jul 17, 2017)

You're right, this is probably too off topic and deserves another thread. I've often thought that a thread on offering helpful critique, and seeking it, would be a good idea.

The very first thing I'd put on the list is for those seeking critique to be as specific as possible when asking for it unless they simply want a wide range of reactions or a broad sampling of impressions. This could also be a great place for the writer to talk about her vision and what she's trying to achieve; that would help.



> So, is it better to say "you can't do this unless you switch to an omniscience POV" or to simply point out what they've done and why it doesn't work in that particular case?



Well that was just a little musing. I think that saying it doesn't work in that case is pretty much the same as saying "you can't do that" there. Although, the better approach might be to explain why it doesn't work in this particular case, rather than just say it doesn't work. But sometimes with newer participants, it's hard to know precisely what level of experience they are bringing to the table, and thus the level of required explanation for the criticism.




Steerpike said:


> Not to get too far afield, but this may get at some of the underlying disconnect, if there is any, in this discussion. I'm not sure what you've said above is absolutely true, so I wouldn't say someone needs to switch to omniscience or remove head-hopping. Certainly there are books with multiple close third-person points of view. The changes usually come at scene or chapter breaks, but they don't _have _to come there.
> 
> What happens most often when one comes across the kind of head-hopping you mention is that it is done poorly. In many cases, the writer seems to be doing it inadvertently. It comes across as amateurish. So, is it better to say "you can't do this unless you switch to an omniscience POV" or to simply point out what they've done and why it doesn't work in that particular case?
> 
> I suppose this could really be a separate thread on how to critique. I agree that you can't always tell what the author's vision is, but you can ask, or else qualify the critique with whatever your understanding of that vision happens to be.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 17, 2017)

FifthView said:


> You're right, this is probably too off topic and deserves another thread. I've often thought that a thread on offering helpful critique, and seeking it, would be a good idea.
> 
> The very first thing I'd put on the list is for those seeking critique to be as specific as possible when asking for it unless they simply want a wide range of reactions or a broad sampling of impressions. This could also be a great place for the writer to talk about her vision and what she's trying to achieve; that would help.
> 
> Well that was just a little musing. I think that saying it doesn't work in that case is pretty much the same as saying "you can't do that" there. Although, the better approach might be to explain why it doesn't work in this particular case, rather than just say it doesn't work. But sometimes with newer participants, it's hard to know precisely what level of experience they are bringing to the table, and thus the level of required explanation for the criticism.



Yes...I agree with all of this. The derail is my fault--a thread on critique is a good idea. Perhaps we could even put together a resource for critiquing, based on best practices or what have you. That would require discussion and a consensus on what best practices are. I don't know whether such a consensus exists, but a discussion of it would be interesting.


----------



## skip.knox (Jul 17, 2017)

There are any number of critiquing guides floating around. We could use those as a starting point.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jul 17, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> First, I will preface this: It is often best not to have a traditional worldbuilding prologue (not speaking of chapter prologues, like GRRM has) in the novel, the info is best twined through the book proper.
> 
> I read the "sample" of _The Warded Man _a couple times thinking about buying it, mainly as a possible comp for my WIP. So, I broke down and bought it, and right after the sample Brett goes into the age old story teller giving us the history of the world setup, in this case, the demon corelings and their relationship with humans.
> 
> ...



Here's the gist of it when I'm the reader: If some passage of text is boring, it is either skimmed or skipped, whether it's in the prologue or midway through your novel. If a passage is not boring, chances are improved that I will read it, but even then, I may skip it, if the not boring part is proceeded by a boring part, and I misjudge how far to skip.

If I decide to skip some part of a prologue, it's easy to skip to the end of the prologue, because the author has conveniently identified for me where the prologue ends. It's called Chapter 1.

I usually will give a prologue a chance (reading at least the first few paragraphs) if I have decided to read the book. But prologues for me already have a strike against them by virtue of being called a prologue. Don't call it a prologue, and maybe I won't realize it is one until I've already read it. If it's not Chapter 1, you don't have to call it anything. Just jump into the text, with no heading, or maybe with some italicized poetry to start, or an entry from a fictional journal, or something else artsy. Just by being different, you boost my interest level, and break the mindset I have against prologues.

How readers react to any written work does not depend solely on that written work. It also depends on the prior experiences the reader has had in reading other books, which has shaped their expectations about future books. By giving the reader something unexpected in the beginning, you're putting them on notice not to skim or skip, because they might miss something interesting. Start your story following the same pattern as other authors, and the reader will expect your work to continue to follow the patterns they have observed in other works. If they see prologues as boring because most of the ones they've read before were boring, and you start with a prologue that follows the same pattern as all the other prologues they've read, then they will expect your prologue to be boring too, possibly without having read a single word of it.

Of course, some readers have not had such bad experiences with prologues, and if your prologue is great, then it will help solidify their position that there's nothing wrong with prologues. So if you write a prologue, do the reading world a favor, and write an interesting one, starting with the first sentence. If you write a boring prologue -- or in some cases, if even just the first sentence of your prologue is boring -- that will reaffirm for those who don't like prologues that prologues are bad, and might make those who don't have a problem with prologues to reconsider their stance on the matter.


----------



## Malik (Jul 17, 2017)

Russ said:


> I agree that many prologues are misused, but I don't think that "setting as character" is a sound reasoning for having a prologue.
> 
> Every other character is the book is usually introduced through the normal  narrative, why should setting be any different?  If you believe in setting as character (and I surely do), there is no reason to info dump on setting any more than character history.



I'm not saying infodump in your prologue. For God's sake, don't infodump. Ever. But in an introductory scene of a character, you have the character doing their normal, everyday thing, which gives you an idea of who they are. A wizard puttering around his workshop. A princess sighing and staring out a window. Whatever. The prologue tells us what the world is up to. You don't have to go into the full backstory, or really even explain anything about how the world works. Just show us what normal looks like, so we'll know what effect the story has on it. That's the prologue. 

Bop over to Amazon and read the Prelude and prologue to "The Unremembered" by Peter Orullian. Holy crap. A double-prologue followed by two notional quotes, and he nails it. By the time you're through those 2-3 pages, you know exactly where you are and what the world looks like; your feet are solidly in the starting blocks, without him ever once explaining anything to you.


----------



## Aurora (Jul 17, 2017)

Malik said:


> I'm not saying infodump in your prologue. For God's sake, don't infodump. Ever.



I'm glad someone else said this. Never.


----------



## Malik (Jul 17, 2017)

There are infodumps and infodumps. It's possible to write an infodump as a story in and of itself, and the result can be a nesting of the stories in your novel like Matroyshka dolls; stories inside stories inside stories. It's been pointed out in this thread that if you use humor, it works even better, but the key is the same whether you make it humorous or not: you have to make it something that the reader wants to read. 

An infodump is a poorly-told story inside your story.


----------



## Mythopoet (Jul 21, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I know others who feel the same way about Rothfuss. Name of the Wind actually held my interest all the way through. Haven’t read the rest of the books yet.



I really liked Name of the Wind. It was Wise Man's Fear that made me hate him. 


As to the issue of prologues. I don't see writing dry worldbuilding in a prologue as any better than dumping it during the narrative. The problem here is that the author isn't good at writing worldbuilding information into the story. It has nothing to do with the merits or lack thereof of a prologue. I don't think that "worldbuilding upfront" is a good use of a prologue.


----------



## Steerpike (Jul 21, 2017)

Mythopoet said:


> I really liked Name of the Wind. It was Wise Man's Fear that made me hate him.
> 
> 
> As to the issue of prologues. I don't see writing dry worldbuilding in a prologue as any better than dumping it during the narrative. The problem here is that the author isn't good at writing worldbuilding information into the story. It has nothing to do with the merits or lack thereof of a prologue. I don't think that "worldbuilding upfront" is a good use of a prologue.



Yes. With new writers in particular a prologue can be a cover for lack of skill, though of course skilled writers use them as well. 

Guess I will have to think about whether I want to read more Rothfuss.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jul 21, 2017)

Yup, that really encourages me struggle my way through Name of the Wind, LOL. But hey, less I read, the more I write anyhow.



Mythopoet said:


> I really liked Name of the Wind. It was Wise Man's Fear that made me hate him.
> 
> 
> As to the issue of prologues. I don't see writing dry worldbuilding in a prologue as any better than dumping it during the narrative. The problem here is that the author isn't good at writing worldbuilding information into the story. It has nothing to do with the merits or lack thereof of a prologue. I don't think that "worldbuilding upfront" is a good use of a prologue.


----------



## R Snyder (Aug 30, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Yeah, what I'd do is skip forward and if at some point I'd decided to read the book, I'd go check out the prologue, LOL. Rothfuss is boring in this way in exponential degrees, heh heh.
> 
> Since I paid for it, I'll at least try to read it.



There's a recommendation for a book.


----------



## Helen (Aug 30, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> First, I will preface this: It is often best not to have a traditional worldbuilding prologue (not speaking of chapter prologues, like GRRM has) in the novel, the info is best twined through the book proper.
> 
> I read the "sample" of _The Warded Man _a couple times thinking about buying it, mainly as a possible comp for my WIP. So, I broke down and bought it, and right after the sample Brett goes into the age old story teller giving us the history of the world setup, in this case, the demon corelings and their relationship with humans.
> 
> ...



I don't mind. As long as it's done well. Again, all down to good execution.


----------



## Russ (Aug 31, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Guess I will have to think about whether I want to read more Rothfuss.



I totally agree with MP on Wise Man's Fear.  As a writer I think Rothfuss is gifted, but he wasted that gift in WMF.

But now I have to buy the third book to see if he can get back to NOW level, because I know he has the talent to do it.  Hopefully he just had an off book.


----------



## psychotick (Sep 2, 2017)

Hi,

I often use prologues to avoid the infodump. So in my latest I needed to get a number of points about the world, the character and the plot explained before I started on the chapter / plot of the book. Specifically I needed to explain that 1) The MC was a prince 2) that he's also an outcast 3) that he's outcast because he's afflicted with magic, 4) that magic is acquired by picking up magical stones and they mark an individual and 5) that he has probably the most heartless mother in the known universe.

I realised (after my editor explained it to me in words of one - often rude - syllable) that I couldn't have that in chapter one. Not because it was boring which is the definition I think of an infodump - but because it stole from the action of the initial chapter. In essence you can't break up a battle scene to explain the world history. So I created a prologue set twenty years earlier, where the MC as a young boy picks up the affliction, showing not telling the process of being afflicted and explaining through his fears, the consequences of it. I think it worked quite well as the reader knows the world - enough anyway - to simply enjoy the battle scene. And because it was an action scene, it couldn't be a dry history / world build lesson - ie infodump. So far no one seems to be complaing as the reviews are positive mostly and the only two star one I got was for daring to put a pistol in an epic fantasy!

I think prologues can be very useful for this sort of thing. And I think you also need to consider the genre when deciding if you should create one. Epic fantasy which I write a lot of, can benefit enormously from them, simply because its a genre where you have a relatively large world build to deal with. Urban fantasy doesn't have this need mostly, since the world is already the one readers are familiar with - with a few tweaks. You can launch straight into the action, reasonably confident that your readers know what's happening.

As an aside I seem to recall reading a long time ago, books that had two and three prologues. Can't remember which books they were, but they would all have been either epic fantasy or far flung space opera.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Russ (Sep 3, 2017)

psychotick said:


> Hi,
> 
> I often use prologues to avoid the infodump. So in my latest I needed to get a number of points about the world, the character and the plot explained before I started on the chapter / plot of the book. Specifically I needed to explain that 1) The MC was a prince 2) that he's also an outcast 3) that he's outcast because he's afflicted with magic, 4) that magic is acquired by picking up magical stones and they mark an individual and 5) that he has probably the most heartless mother in the known universe.
> 
> ...



To me, an admitted prologue skeptic, this is the classic situation when a prologue is needed.  I  have posted on this here before, but one of the times a prologue is needed is when the initiating event is temporally distance from the call to action or the beginning of the story proper.  Good choices there Greg.


----------

