# Why are you married to a prologue/epilogue?



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 8, 2012)

I make it no secret that I hate "bookends" that don't tie a series together, I just dismissed a published book someone tried to force on a friend because the prologue and epilogue had nothing to do with the story other than some causal characters and a flimsy premise. 

I also see almost everyone here attached to this concept of a prologue and/or epilogue in manuscripts.

So, why do you do it? Why are you attached to the concept?

I promise, I won't dismiss your input. My opinion is my own, but there might be some justified reason I am not aware of. I'd love some input on this. Thanks in advance!


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 8, 2012)

I dislike prologues a great deal. I am as apt as not to put a book back on the shelf the moment I see it has one. Not to say I haven't read good ones, but I'm not well-disposed toward them.


----------



## Ireth (Apr 8, 2012)

I can honestly say I'm not one of those who is married to the prologue/epilogue concept; I've only ever written one story with a prologue, and that was years ago. It didn't even need to be a prologue at all. :/ It didn't have a corresponding epilogue, either.

I think a lot of people use the prologue to infodump about their worlds -- history, mythology, whatever. I can think of one specific example where this was a good thing: Tolkien's Lord of the Rings has a prologue all about the nature and customs of hobbits. It's not like he goes all the way back to the Elder Days and blabs on about the Rings of Power; he tells us about what the protagonists are, what their race is like, what their homes and things are like. We get a chance to get to know them before the real story begins and we're thrust into a fantasy world, so we're not left going "What? Why does everyone have hairy feet? What's a hobbit?" Though many people usually skim it on a first reading (me included), it does help the first few chapters of the story make a lot more sense.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Apr 8, 2012)

I agree that too many people add prologs that aren't needed.  One of my stories does have one, but only because that part of the story happens forty or so years prior to the real story.  It covers the discovery of an event that shapes the rest of the story and gives the reason why the people were prepared for it and how they were able to discover the other things that were going wrong.  It could be chapter one, but since the characters in the prolog are never in the story again, I felt it should be separated from the main part of the story.  Typically I avoid doing them at all.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 8, 2012)

I think it is just that so many prologues are poorly done, or unnecessary (or both). If I pick up a book by an unknown author who hasn't been recommended to me by someone I trust, and I see a prologue, there is almost no chance I'll buy it. On the other hand, I just bought a book by Tim Powers that has one. I know I like Powers. He could write a prologue in swahili, with all the letters backward so you had to read it in a mirror, and I'd still buy it.


----------



## The Din (Apr 8, 2012)

Prologues are just another tool at the writers disposal, a good one, used right. To suggest that someone who uses them must be married to them seems a little odd. Can't imagine the sex would be too good. 

For my NIP, I stick to two POVs for the entire length. A prologue allows me to deviate from this without leaving the reader wondering where that third POV went. This lets me introduce my characters from an outsider's perspective before disappearing inside their heads. 

While not every novel needs a prologue, I challenge the idea that they are somehow detrimental to a story in a skilled writer's hands.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 8, 2012)

I used to use the prologue, but I abandoned it long ago. Speaking from experience, the reason most beginner writers use prologues is that it gives them an excuse to infodump. They can ramble on about what the world is like and the billion races who live in it and the magic system and the cultures and the backstory, so that way, when they finally get around to telling the story... you'll have put the book down because it bored you stiff. 

Personally, I don't trust myself not to infodump, so I avoid prologues. My philosophy is that if it's important enough to merit a prologue, it's probably important enough to just be a normal chapter, or if absolutely necessary, a flashback. Show, don't tell, etc.

Of course, more experienced writers handle their prologues with more finesse, but I generally advise people to stay away from them unless they really, really know what they're doing.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 9, 2012)

I'm not married to prologues/epilogues. But they do have their place. There's this attitude that only bad writers use them. But I think that arises, like others have mentioned, because they're used poorly so often. One point to make, sometimes a story does need a prologue to present things that just don't fit neatly in the main story but are important to know. From personal experience, I've had an editor tell me that a novel I wrote needed a prologue. This may very well be because of a limitation in my skills but... anyway. IMHO it's a mistake to toss a useful tool aside just because people say it's bad. I suspect some just don't know how to use it. Truthfully, I'm not 100% sure myself.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2012)

I disagree that a story ever "needs" one. I think they can be done well if handled properly though. But I can't think a a story having to have something labeled a prologue. Why not just chapter one?


----------



## Caged Maiden (Apr 9, 2012)

The way I use a prologue is if I have a scene which I think sets a tone for a book, but is way too small to be a chapter.  I don't know that it even needs to be a prologue, really, but I think sometimes I like a little introduction.  Maybe like an ice-breaker when you're meeting someone new.  Or even a pick-up line.


----------



## Shockley (Apr 9, 2012)

It really depends on the author. Some of Crichton's best writing (your mileage may vary on how much of his writing is any good at all) occurs in his prologues.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 9, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> But I can't think a a story having to have something labeled a prologue. Why not just chapter one?



No expert but two reasons come to mind for me.

One reason not to label it chapter one is because there's a large time gap. If the prologue takes place say 20 years in the past, and assuming it's a proper prologue, it can be jarring for the reader to read chapter one with the main character as a young boy of 10 and then chapter two has him at age 30. Labelling the "first" chapter as prologue can be like, but not the same, as adding an extra space within a scene to let the reader know there's a shift in POV coming.

A second reason not to label it chapter one is if the prologue is from a POV that's not the main characters and from a person who we never see again. It can be confusing to read a "first" chapter from a character that simple disappears from the story. People first will assume the character is the main character and when they're not, will wonder where the character has gone. That can be dispelled by having a prologue.

Right or wrong, my two cents.


----------



## Chilari (Apr 9, 2012)

In both those two cases where prologues might be used, they're not necessary. The event which happened in the main character's past can be revealed during the main story, either with the character remembering it at appropriate times, or telling another character about it, or through nightmares, etc. Unless it's utterly vital that the reader know in advance what happened to this character when he was 10, I'd favour revealing it bit by bit as it becomes relevant.

As for the events which occurred to other charatcers who then don't reappear, that, I would say, is even more redundant. If your main charatcers don't know of those events, why does the reader need to? If they do know of those events, why can't the reader discover them in the same way the characters do. If they know from folklore and have known their entire lives, have one character tell his daughter, or introduce a storyteller character to whom your main characters listen with half an ear while doing other things. If they learn through research in a library, reveal it like that. If the events are conveyed to them through a military report, or they learn that something has happened and go to investigate the scene and work out what they can from that, then that's the way the reader should learn about the event, not in a prologue.

The only time the reader should know more than the characters is when you're using that disparity to build tension - the reader knows that the characters will get caught in a trap if they take one path of action, but they don't, and with the information they have at the time, that path of action seems preferable. It is in that situation where I would deem a prologue acceptable. But generally, if a character learns something, the reader should learn it at the same time. It makes the story more immediate, prevents you as a writer from repeating something you've already explained to your readers for the benefit of your characters, and makes it easier for the reader to identify with the character.


----------



## Amanita (Apr 9, 2012)

Remembering earlier discussions here, I'm under the impression that most people on this forum are strictly anti-prologue.  I think it can be helpful but it'n not necessary in every story. Therefore I don't think anyone here is "married" to a prologue. 
I do believe that there are situations where it can be helpful to introduce a conflict from someone else's view before the story begins and have the character be unaware of it a first. I've seen quite a few stories where this helped building tension even though it probably can be done in other ways as well. 
Epilogues are something I generally dislike. In case of Harry Potter the epilogue actually diminished many people's enjoyement of the series because so many thing were set in stone rather than allowing readers to use their own imagination. At the moment, I can't think of any other book with an epilogue, but I generally believe that it's not necessary to tell readers what happens after the last chapter.


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 9, 2012)

Amanita said:


> Remembering earlier discussions here, I'm under the impression that most people on this forum are strictly anti-prologue.  I think it can be helpful but it'n not necessary in every story. Therefore I don't think anyone here is "married" to a prologue.



Yet, when I search the term "prologue", there are many people who use it in their WIPs. Granted, it isn't a large percentage of it in the past, but it is cropping up now. Even when people say they don't need it, they will fight for it because their story feels less important without it.

This is why I am asking why people are "married" to them. If you already know they aren't advancing your story, and you stull have to drag them along like a ball-and-chain, then you are married to it.


----------



## Joanna (Apr 9, 2012)

I usually don't do prologues, but in my current WIP I'm planning to use one. As a single scene from the main character's childhood the reason behind it is to set the mood for the story and reveal a bit about the character and dreams of the hero. I'd rather have it as prologue than something the character remembers later on, because I don't think it would matter as much if given later in the story. It also gives a bit of a flavour of the world and setting.

As for epilogues, I sometimes have mixed feelings about them, but tying up some loose ends can be helpful unless the point of the book was to leave the reader without an answer. However in the case of such detailed ones like in Harry Potter I believe that's a clear signal from the author saying "yes I do mean it, there will not be any more Potter books". 

Funny enough I've already planned an epilogue for the current WIP (both a prologue and an epilogue *gasp*, I think most forum member would not touch this book  ), but it's more of a teaser for the future events in the series, rather than a "here's how everyone's life ended".


----------



## Rullenzar (Apr 9, 2012)

There are only two reasons a prologue should be made:
1. Introduces an evil or something of the like into the story so the reader gets a hint of what will come (Martin does this in Game of thrones, introducing the white walkers). 

2. You introduce a history to readers that is relevant to your story ( A character whom will appear next to or against your character, introducing your world to the reader). 

Both these options aren't necessary to make a great novel and authors can introduce bit by bit as the story goes but they are still options none the less. The books with prologues that have nothing to do with the stories are obviously useless.

Like all things in life the bad apples stick out like a sore thumb and give the good apples a tough time to shine bright. As for me, I will most likely be using a prologue to introduce some history that is relevant to my story up until about 20 years before my main character takes action. There is nothing wrong with prologues/epilogues if done right. People are just too caught up on the bad ones and dismiss them all together. 

Be a rebel and make a prologue, Rull out.


----------



## bbeams32 (Apr 9, 2012)

I believe that prologues can be useful in introducing a story through a viewpoint/characters outside of the main protagonists.  I'm not one to usually use prologues, but I'm a fan of using an epilogue to tie one story to the next outside of wrapping up the main story of that individual book.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 9, 2012)

I've got a prologue in my NIP. It introduces the main setting, and the major antagonist, and a few ancillary characters who show up later. There is very little in the way of infodump; it's all integrated into the events that happen in the prologue. We don't see the antagonist for several chapters afterward, but we do hear about him. Chapter 1 takes place in the same city as the prologue. The prologue's POV character dies at the end of the prologue (not a spoiler; the first sentence of the prologue tells you he dies).

I feel confident enough to say that I don't think the prologue is poorly-written or unnecessary. There are no large-scale dumps of info about the world or its history; we get some details about it in the course of the events that happen, but no more than in any other chapter.

I'd honestly be surprised to find that prologues in _published_ books are, as a rule, any worse than the rest of the book. If something was good enough to get published (by, say, a major publisher) then the prologue is probably of a quality with the regular chapters, so finding a prologue in a book I pull off a bookstore shelf (in the unlikely event I ever go into a bookstore again) wouldn't faze me. I tend to buy books that have already come highly recommended anyway.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 9, 2012)

Chilari said:


> In both those two cases where prologues might be used, they're not necessary.



Sorry, I really don't want to derail this thread by arguing, so I'll just say what I have to say and leave it at that. You've just said that my examples were instances where prologues weren't necessary but then contradicted yourself by giving examples of why they could could be necessary in those instances and that confuses me.

For the first example you said in response to an time jump for the main character.



Chilari said:


> Unless it's utterly vital that the reader know in advance what happened to this character when he was 10, I'd favour revealing it bit by bit as it becomes relevant.



And for the second example for characters showing up only once.



Chilari said:


> The only time the reader should know more than the characters is when you're using that disparity to build tension - the reader knows that the characters will get caught in a trap if they take one path of action, but they don't, and with the information they have at the time, that path of action seems preferable. It is in that situation where I would deem a prologue acceptable.



These aren't the only instances were those examples are valid, but they show that there are times when the examples I gave are necessary, so I'm curious why you dismissed them.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 9, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> You've just said that my examples were instances where prologues weren't necessary but then contradicted yourself by giving examples of why they could could be necessary in those instances and that confuses me.



I think those are instances where Chilari is saying you "may" use them, but again not where they are necessary. I agree. My preference would be not to use a prologue even in those instances, though I think those examples are better than some of the other reasons people employ prologues. I don't think Chilari said they could be "necessary" in those circumstances, but instead indicated an understanding of why someone might use them.


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 9, 2012)

Now, I went through and looked at some more entries today and it seems there are more prologues cropping up. This is not a blight or some eternal damnation, but it seems that people have a determination/fascination with these things. 

Do we feel it is due to publishing houses thrusting this upon the masses? I had a chat with two "professional readers" with contacts and they echoed the sentiment.

Is it because these seem natural? Remember, fiction writing (other than tightening up prose and structure a bit) hasn't changed in some time. We are still holding onto some residuals from 70+ years or so.

I don't think it is an "education" thing, where we have to teach it to writers. Everyone has an opinion on it, as I can see in this thread (thank the gods there isn't blood), so is this a reflection on the reader, the writer, or the industry?

I'm really curious as to what everyone thinks. I don't know if this is covered in another thread. If it is, I'll ask this one be locked if it has run its course.


----------



## Chilari (Apr 10, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I think those are instances where Chilari is saying you "may" use them, but again not where they are necessary. I agree. My preference would be not to use a prologue even in those instances, though I think those examples are better than some of the other reasons people employ prologues. I don't think Chilari said they could be "necessary" in those circumstances, but instead indicated an understanding of why someone might use them.



Yes, this is precisely what I mean. I don't think any prologue is _necessary_, but I can see how writers find them useful for particular scenarios when they want to convey information in a particular manner.


----------



## Ankari (Apr 16, 2012)

Then when _is_ a prologue a tool that should be used?  I ask this sincerely because I was about to start my story and begin with a prologue.  

From what I've seen from successful authors they use a prologue to:

1) Give the reader some information in the past.  Robert Jordan Wheel of Time.

2) Introduce an antagonist or evil.  George RR Martin ASOIAF

3) Reveal information that will later involve the main character(s).  Steven Erickson Malazan Book of the Fallen.

Are these acceptable reasons for a prologue?


----------



## Shockley (Apr 17, 2012)

I'm not anti-prologue, but Jordan's prologues really turned me off to WoT. That's one of the reasons I was never able to get into it.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Apr 17, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Then when _is_ a prologue a tool that should be used?  I ask this sincerely because I was about to start my story and begin with a prologue.
> 
> From what I've seen from successful authors they use a prologue to:
> 
> ...



If you are an established author with a solid reputation, sure.  I personally found the prologs to the wheel of time books to be rather stupid since they may have well been chapter 1 and 2 and 3 and..well, however many chapters he could have made in the excessively long prologs, and epilogs.  And the very beginning prolog of book one, while it makes sense a few books later, was difficult to read through.  

The one place a prolog would make sense for most people (and in the wheel of time I think of it as one long story broken into many parts so a prolog is a bit pointless) is when there are people not really main characters of the story at the beginning of one of the books that are doing things that might have impact later.  That is more what a prolog is for, the part of the story that isn't really in the main story.  Characters that are not long term characters but have some importance to the story, before or at a far later time (although the later should be more built into the story itself).

Prologs are not evil, but so often unnecessary or bad that the word brings loathing to most of us.


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 17, 2012)

Ankari said:


> Then when _is_ a prologue a tool that should be used?  I ask this sincerely because I was about to start my story and begin with a prologue.
> 
> From what I've seen from successful authors they use a prologue to:
> 
> ...



For me, from what I see, they are great to tie in the second book of a series into the first (and following books in with each other). I am a firm believer that eventually, your story will use your prologue as a premise to inspire or push your protagonist to greater things.

Did ASoFaI need the prologue? Nope. This was easily adapted later on and took some of the power away from the reveal.

Never read Jordan, never care to. An info dump is an info dump.

To each their own, but I believe you are doing your story, your characters, and your readers a disservice by not allowing them to connect the same way your characters would to the story. It gives a bit more edge and makes your story memorable.


----------



## Ankari (Apr 17, 2012)

As I understand it, its acceptable to use a prologue in any book after the first?  The only place a prologue is not acceptable is in the first book.  Is that right?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 17, 2012)

Ankari said:


> As I understand it, its acceptable to use a prologue in any book after the first?  The only place a prologue is not acceptable is in the first book.  Is that right?



That's one _opinion._ Remember, there is no right or wrong in any of this. 

_A Game of Thrones_ uses a prologue, and it's quite an effective one. By the time I got to the end of it, I thought, "Holy crap, that was terrifying," and I couldn't wait to find out more. I was actually a bit disappointed that it's so long before we see the White Walkers again. (Of course, the rest of the story more than made up for it.)

Martin uses the prologue as a way to give us a POV character who is not used again (and usually dies at the end of the prologue), which allows him to give different perspectives on events that you can't get with the main characters. (To be fair, he ends up doing some one- or two-shot POV characters in the later books, which I don't really like. You go through 2/3 of the book and then suddenly a new POV character is introduced, which is kind of cheap. I actually adapted this in a way I like better for my own novel; the main story is from 4 POV characters in alternating chapters, but there are three "interlude" chapters for POV characters who only get a POV once–but it's explicitly an interlude, rather than just a one-shot who might or might not show up again. I'm big on formal structure.)

It's also a clever way to get the reader into the groove of the story without having to spend the most _valuable_ resource–time with characters we like–before the reader is ready for it. By the time you get to book 2 or 3, the prologue is with characters we've either never seen or barely seen; once it's over, we're sucked into the world again, and ready to spend quality time with people we like (Arya, Tyrion, etc.).

This isn't to say that the prologues are perfect; Martin has a tendency to sort of throw you into the deep end and slowly give you the details you need to understand what's going on. I personally prefer to be eased in a bit more slowly. But I still enjoy them.

And unlike others here, I have never really had the experience that prologues in novels are usually, generally, or even frequently bad. To me, a prologue is a way to introduce me to the world of the novel, and if it's well-written, it's just as effective as a cold open on a TV show, or the pre-credits sequence in a James Bond movie, or even the first scenes of _Star Wars_. The idea that otherwise good novels usually have lousy prologues is preposterous.


----------



## Devor (Apr 17, 2012)

I've seen readers say, "where is this going?" Throw in a prologue featuring the bad guy and that goes away.

However, I do object to the word "prologue" being printed on the chapter unless it is genuinely a lesser, info-dump type of chapter. If a prologue is worth having, it should be part of the story. I typically say prologue but only mean an opening chapter told from a different POV than the MC.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 17, 2012)

Devor said:


> However, I do object to the word "prologue" being printed on the chapter unless it is genuinely a lesser, info-dump type of chapter. If a prologue is worth having, it should be part of the story.



What exactly do you mean by "part of the story"? It's in the book; it _is_ part of the story. Why does the label at the top of the first page so drastically change how you feel about it? How does putting "Prologue" at the beginning suddenly make it not part of the story? (I'm not trying to be hostile here; I'm really looking to establish some kind of formal structure in this debate.)

As an exercise, consider these two cases:

*A.* 30-chapter novel, labeled "Chapter 1" through "Chapter 30"
*B.* 30-chapter novel. The first chapter is labeled "Prologue" and the other 29 chapters are labeled "Chapter 1" through "Chapter 29".

And assume there are literally no other differences between the two cases. The text in every chapter is exactly the same from case A to case B (except that case B's "Chapter 1" is case A's "Chapter 2").

What's the difference aside from the labels at the top of the pages?


----------



## Devor (Apr 17, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> What's the difference aside from the labels at the top of the pages?



I think I misstated a little.

I only mean that people commonly associate prologues with info-dumps or short scenes that don't build into the story.  I know a number of people who tell me they skip prologues - or else that they read a prologue, and that I should skip it - and I've seen a lot of prologues which, while they might be "relevant," and may be necessary from a story-telling perspective, they aren't always necessary from a plot-perspective.  Evil people stand around and talk vaguely about killing everyone?  Eerie, creepy, foreshadowing, but not specific enough to be unskippable.  People losing a fight with some unknown undead-ish shadowy figures?  Creepy, fun, but well, all of those characters did end up dead.

The lack of necessary plot elements, I think, sometimes causes readers not to realize that it's necessary from other story-telling perspectives.

I said that I "object" to using the word prologue most of the time, and object was really the wrong word.  It's not like a moral thing, and I'm not grumbling _standards, people, standards!_  I only mean, masking that it's a prologue a little bit might help it to be better received by your readers.  The word has connotations, and it might be worth trying to slip by their preconceptions.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 17, 2012)

Devor said:


> I only mean that people commonly associate prologues with info-dumps or short scenes that don't build into the story.



This is true. Prologues are usually boring. I used to lump the Prologue together with the Foreword into the category of "author rambling on things I don't care about" and skip to the "real" story. In fact, some prologues are forewords, just with a different header, because they're written from the author's perspective and aren't part of the narrative at all. Those are the worst kind of prologues IMO.

But anyway, using a "prologue" is going to instantly conjure a negative connotation with most readers and they're going to skip it. If the prologue really is important, why not call it chapter one? That way people will actually pay attention to it and not think of it as just "the foreword, part two."


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 17, 2012)

Labelling a prologue as chapter 1 can cause issues too. The reader will probably mistake the prologue characters for the main characters and if they don't show up again, the reader will get confused. They will probably constantly wonder what happened to those characters in chapter one they liked so much, and if they don't come back, they may put down the book. 

Also this can cause a problem with pacing. The book will in essence start twice. One start for the prologue and then another one for the real story. IMHO it's generally bad idea to try to trick readers. If it's a true prologue call it a prologue.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 17, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Labelling a prologue as chapter 1 can cause issues too. The reader will probably mistake the prologue characters for the main characters and if they don't show up again, the reader will get confused. They will probably constantly wonder what happened to those characters in chapter one they liked so much, and if they don't come back, they may put down the book.
> 
> Also this can cause a problem with pacing. The book will in essence start twice. One start for the prologue and then another one for the real story. IMHO it's generally bad idea to try to trick readers. If it's a true prologue call it a prologue.



What if you just kill all the intro characters? That would solve the problem.


----------



## The Din (Apr 17, 2012)

I used to skip prologues, when I was ten. I really can't see the majority of readers doing this. As for labeling it chapter one, I think penpilot has hit the nail right on the head, so I won't bother repeating it. I will add that doing so implies a deep disrespect to the reader and an air of insecurity to the writer. Good writing's good writing, whatever its called. There's no reason a prologue can't be written just as well as any other chapter, should the story require/benefit from one.


----------



## Devor (Apr 17, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Labelling a prologue as chapter 1 can cause issues too. The reader will probably mistake the prologue characters for the main characters and if they don't show up again, the reader will get confused. They will probably constantly wonder what happened to those characters in chapter one they liked so much, and if they don't come back, they may put down the book.
> 
> Also this can cause a problem with pacing. The book will in essence start twice. One start for the prologue and then another one for the real story. IMHO it's generally bad idea to try to trick readers. If it's a true prologue call it a prologue.



That's a good point, but it depends a lot on the prologue, it's relevance, and the value of its content.  I disagree, though, that it means the book is "starting twice."  Your second opening, as it were, is addressing an already-hooked reader.  And even insomuch as it is starting twice, certainly the word "Prologue" isn't going to change that effect.

Lastly, the line between Prologue and Chapter is so remarkably thin, and the content of early chapters so frequently unpredictable, that I really don't think a reader _would_ feel tricked.

There are books, for instance, with multiple prologues, and it'd be crazy to try and label them all as such.  And then there's books like Harry Potter, which _does_ open with an unlabeled prologue, in that it starts from a different POV, but it is entirely unskippable.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 17, 2012)

In short, a badly done prologue is like unto an annoying opening cutscene in a video game. I can't think of a single prologue that a story couldn't have done without.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 17, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> But anyway, using a "prologue" is going to instantly conjure a negative connotation with most readers and they're going to skip it.



I wonder if there's any hard data on those points. I imagine someone must have done some research, although I really can't imagine that the popular perception of fantasy novel prologues has been the subject of much academic study...


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 17, 2012)

The Din said:


> I used to skip prologues, when I was ten. I really can't see the majority of readers doing this. As for labeling it chapter one, I think penpilot has hit the nail right on the head, so I won't bother repeating it. I will add that doing so implies a deep disrespect to the reader and an air of insecurity to the writer. Good writing's good writing, whatever its called. There's no reason a prologue can't be written just as well as any other chapter, should the story require/benefit from one.



Problem is they don't generally benefit. I have no problems skipping a prologue if it isn't interesting. More likely, I simply won't buy the book in the first place. I feel like prologues generally start _before_ the story, and the writer knows it or else wouldn't feel compelled to call it prologue. Start with the story, that's my advice.


----------



## Ankari (Apr 17, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I wonder if there's any hard data on those points. I imagine someone must have done some research, although I really can't imagine that the popular perception of fantasy novel prologues has been the subject of much academic study...



I was thinking the same thing.  I wonder why, if prologues are so hated, are they in almost every successful fantasy series I've read.  I bumped this thread to find out how to write a successful prologue but all I see is great dislike of them.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 17, 2012)

Yeah, this thread was sort of a debate on prologues. If you want advice on writing a good one, might be better to start another thread (with no baggage)


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 18, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> What if you just kill all the intro characters? That would solve the problem.



It could work but it could also again cause confusion. With a fantasy world and a reader's imagination, it's not beyond belief that the reader may expect or suspect that the either the character(s) survived or will be resurrected in some way to impact the story. When the rules of the world aren't well established yet, it can create false expectations. Like it's a zombie knight come back from the grave to avenge his own death story or the character has nine lives. 



Devor said:


> I disagree, though, that it means the book is "starting twice."  Your second opening, as it were, is addressing an already-hooked reader.  And even insomuch as it is starting twice, certainly the word "Prologue" isn't going to change that effect.



My thinking is the prologue introduces characters and a conflict and a setting. Chapter 1 has to do the same with new characters a new conflict and maybe a new setting and IMHO slows the story pace down. That's what I mean by a double start.

Another issue about pacing is if there's a slow prologue and fast first chapter1, labelling the prologue chapter 1 will start the book slow. A worse scenario would be a slow prologue and a slow chapter 1. That'll kill it for a lot of readers for sure. Then there's the fast prologue and fast chapter 1, probably the best combination, but I'd still be worried about confusing the reader.

The word prologue makes things clear to the reader that a certain bit of text is outside of the main story and is probably self contained. The reader clearly knows the main story doesn't start until the labelled Chapter 1, so there's IMHO there's a bit of forgiveness if there's a slow prologue.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 18, 2012)

Ireth said:


> I think a lot of people use the prologue to infodump about their worlds -- history, mythology, whatever. I can think of one specific example where this was a good thing: Tolkien's Lord of the Rings has a prologue all about the nature and customs of hobbits. It's not like he goes all the way back to the Elder Days and blabs on about the Rings of Power; he tells us about what the protagonists are, what their race is like, what their homes and things are like. We get a chance to get to know them before the real story begins and we're thrust into a fantasy world, so we're not left going "What? Why does everyone have hairy feet? What's a hobbit?" Though many people usually skim it on a first reading (me included), it does help the first few chapters of the story make a lot more sense.



The Hobbit - the first introduction anyone in the world had to Bilbo and his ilk - was published with no prologue of any kind, and begins only with the line, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." He then goes on to describe both the hole and the creature to be found within it - because at this point no one has any idea what a hobbit is. I think that the prologue at the start of Fellowship is material added as a sort of appendix that happens to appear at the start. It adds some depth to the Shire and gives a good depiction of its populace, but it's hardly necessary to read it to enjoy the story. I usually skip it, as it is not part of the story and to begin there is to start in a dry place. It's like brushing your teeth without putting any toothpaste on your brush. 

Prologues are most effective when they act as a teaser, and Epilogues conversely work well as a brief denouement. Any information you wish to convey to the reader, in my opinion, should be relayed to the reader within the meat of the story. 

Of course, I say that yet only today I considered adding a single-page preface to the piece I'm working on to give an early introduction to the world, and the political realities of its five Realms as the story opens. I might write one to see if it has any value, but I think I would prefer not to employ such a device.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 18, 2012)

Before I answer this question, allow me to provide, in detail, all the reasons why I am an authority on this subject and therefore why you should accept everything I'm about to write uncritically:




















Now that that's out of the way, on to the matter at hand:

My general rule of thumb for writing is that you should never be "married" to anything: there's no tried and true formula for making a story work -- the only thing you really have to do to make a story work is to get the reader to say "Huh. OK." and keep reading. If the reader accepts it, you win. If the reader doesn't accept it, you lose.

From this perspective, the prologue can be handy. Say you want the bulk of the book to accept a perceived reality shared by all of the characters, and shared uncritically by them, but that shared reality is a lie. You don't want to give away the entire lie, but you want the reader to have a little undercurrent of discomfort, the feeling that something isn't... quite... right... but if you introduced a character who communicated this, it would telegraph the problem too quickly or with too much volume.

Enter the prologue: before the actual story begins, you tell a short story -- think of the prologue as a longish piece of flash fiction -- that presents a character who is operating under a set of assumptions that aren't directly explained, but are obviously different from the assumptions of everyone else in the book... and when the moment comes when the shared worldview comes crashing down, you have the opportunity to tie in the prologue and get the reader to shout "SO THAT'S WHY [noun] [verb] [adjective]!"

Prologues are *great* for that. If you manage to get the reader to go "Huh. OK." and read on. But you won't always be able to do that. Some people hate prologues so much they'll throw the book away -- if there are enough people like that, then it doesn't matter how useful a device it is, it will keep people from reading your book.

Also, prologues are handy because people set them apart from everything else mentally -- it's considered something "different" from the rest of the book. Which means that, if you have to, you can use it to break conventions in other parts of the book *and get away with that* while minimizing reader confusion.

(I'm currently using a prologue exactly for this reason -- to solve a problem I don't know how to solve otherwise. It is a kludge, but it works so far.)


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 18, 2012)

Thanks everyone for commenting on this thread, it seems this is a subject people have some passion about.

There are some good prologues, but most are visualized in movies and the like. They also tie into the story in someway (Darth Vader appearing on the rebel ship is a good one, or so I am told). 

The reason I know I am turned off by these devils are that they can be either infodumps or they can have nothing to do with the story at all (One line or word that ties into an event 2/3rds of way through the book is pretty weak connecting). Since we are talking about hooking your reader and making them want to read your book, anything rather dull and uninteresting at the beginning is always going to doom you.

So, if you were going to hold a gun to my head and say you'd shoot if I didn't admit there are some good prologues, I would say there are freely. They often happen in movies these days, framing something that will happen in the movie and not filled with a massive infodump about something that doesn't apply.

If you can write a prologue that reads like a movie, I'd relent.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 18, 2012)

Leif GS Notae said:


> There are some good prologues, but most are visualized in movies and the like. They also tie into the story in someway (Darth Vader appearing on the rebel ship is a good one, or so I am told).
> 
> So, if you were going to hold a gun to my head and say you'd shoot if I didn't admit there are some good prologues, I would say there are freely. They often happen in movies these days, framing something that will happen in the movie and not filled with a massive infodump about something that doesn't apply.



The "prologue" that appears at the beginning of Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy is an awful thing and I usually skip it. Infodumping occurs massively here, and the major villain of the story is unfortunately portrayed and described, then shown defeated. Way to deflate any tension one might have hoped for from NOT seeing Sauron, from wondering just who he was and what he's capable of. We also see his orcs and armies defeated, so they won't hold much terror for the audience that continues to watch. And the Ring's powers are given away. There's nothing that kills the mystique and magic of a story faster than just laying it all out on the table in a big, fat InfoDump!


----------



## Leif GS Notae (Apr 18, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> The "prologue" that appears at the beginning of Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy is an awful thing and I usually skip it. Infodumping occurs massively here, and the major villain of the story is unfortunately portrayed and described, then shown defeated. Way to deflate any tension one might have hoped for from NOT seeing Sauron, from wondering just who he was and what he's capable of. We also see his orcs and armies defeated, so they won't hold much terror for the audience that continues to watch. And the Ring's powers are given away. There's nothing that kills the mystique and magic of a story faster than just laying it all out on the table in a big, fat InfoDump!



True, but I can forgive it somewhat since they never knew if they were going to film the Hobbit or not (at that point, it seemed as though it were a long shot). Now with the Hobbit coming out, it does devalue that scene and make it stick out like a sore thumb.

This is why prologues can be dangerous too, you can write yourself into a quirky hole that devalues other works in the future if it doesn't match up.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Apr 19, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> The "prologue" that appears at the beginning of Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy is an awful thing and I usually skip it. Infodumping occurs massively here, and the major villain of the story is unfortunately portrayed and described, then shown defeated. Way to deflate any tension one might have hoped for from NOT seeing Sauron, from wondering just who he was and what he's capable of. We also see his orcs and armies defeated, so they won't hold much terror for the audience that continues to watch. And the Ring's powers are given away. There's nothing that kills the mystique and magic of a story faster than just laying it all out on the table in a big, fat InfoDump!



I have to disagree. I rather liked the prologue; it condenses three thousand years of Middle-Earth history into a few minutes of screen time, showing what has come before. It gave a really epic feel to the whole thing.

Yes, I realize that part of Sauron's mystique in the books is that we never actually see him (I remember reaching the end of LotR and thinking, "Wait a minute... we never actually met the dude!"), but movies are a visual format. Unless you're doing horror, a villain who's never seen has a lot less impact than one with a scary visage.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 19, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I have to disagree. I rather liked the prologue; it condenses three thousand years of Middle-Earth history into a few minutes of screen time, showing what has come before. It gave a really epic feel to the whole thing.
> 
> Yes, I realize that part of Sauron's mystique in the books is that we never actually see him (I remember reaching the end of LotR and thinking, "Wait a minute... we never actually met the dude!"), but movies are a visual format. Unless you're doing horror, a villain who's never seen has a lot less impact than one with a scary visage.



I agree with this.


----------



## Penpilot (Apr 19, 2012)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I have to disagree. I rather liked the prologue; it condenses three thousand years of Middle-Earth history into a few minutes of screen time, showing what has come before. It gave a really epic feel to the whole thing.
> 
> Yes, I realize that part of Sauron's mystique in the books is that we never actually see him (I remember reaching the end of LotR and thinking, "Wait a minute... we never actually met the dude!"), but movies are a visual format. Unless you're doing horror, a villain who's never seen has a lot less impact than one with a scary visage.



Ditto. 

To me it showed Sauron at the hight of his power. It showed what a bad ass he was and how close he was to victory. The audience got to live out the moment instead of being told it second hand by say... Gandalf as he info dumped his way through a scene.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 19, 2012)

Penpilot said:


> Ditto.
> 
> To me it showed Sauron at the hight of his power. It showed what a bad ass he was and how close he was to victory. The audience got to live out the moment instead of being told it second hand by say... Gandalf as he info dumped his way through a scene.



The power of the One Ring is badly portrayed in this scene. It is meant to allow him to control the minds of those who use the other Great Rings, and to corrupt those under his power. Sauron's power is mainly insidious - that's how he fooled the Elves in the first place. The Ring in this prologue makes it seem as though it just lets Sauron hit people really hard. 

In the book, Gandalf is exactly the one who tells Frodo about Sauron and the One Ring. While this scene does contain important exposition, I wouldn't say it qualifies as an "info-dump" because Frodo is learning vital information, and experiencing real fear. As a reader, you learn these things simultaneously, and this allows one to relate to Frodo - for your fear and feelings of uncertainty are mirrored by his. 

Some of the scenes in the prologue could have been transferred to this point as flashbacks rather effectively; but I still think that showing Sauron defeated is a bad move. 

The prologue in general exists for audience members who are unacquainted with Middle Earth and unaccustomed to fantasy settings. It begins really well - there's Galadriel's VO that comes on and she says, "The world is changed: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, I smell it in the air...Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it." She relates about the making of the Great Rings, and the One Ring to rule them all. If the prologue had ended there, it would have been perfectly effective as a prologue; but they went too far and gave away too much. Probably because the producers felt that newcomers to the LotR would be lost if they didn't have everything spelled out for them. 

In contrast, The Matrix has a sort of prologue in which Trinity and Cypher discuss the possibility of Neo being "the One" - this is super effective, as it plants the seeds of important thematic ideas but gives away nothing at all. It's an exciting teaser moment that does exactly what a prologue should. 

Imagine the movie reworked to have a lame introductory prologue in which Agent Smith drawls on to expound and explain in detail about the War with the Machines, the nature of the Matrix, the One that came before, and what the One now has to do to bring about peace. Totally unnecessary and undermining to the story's magic. 

I will always believe that Less is More, and I will gravitate towards books and films which are created by artists who give enough credit to their audiences. I wonder what Tolkien would have thought if he could have seen that prologue...


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Apr 19, 2012)

Well, the prolog in the fellowship of the ring movie was actually one of the best parts of the book, but sadly it isn't that dramatic in film so they changed it.  But all that information JRR Tolkien put 'in the story' in the original book, and not in a prolog.  So, in this instance, while I understand why it was done in the movie, I'll stick with the point that tolkien didn't make it a prolog at all, but worked all that into the story in a way that was enjoyable.


----------



## JBryden88 (Apr 19, 2012)

I think a prologue (imo at least) should play two roles:

It should be a story that can stand alone, a short story if you will.

It should set up the main plot the rest of the novel should tell.

It should NOT be just an info dump or unrelated thing.

In my current writing project, Chapter 1 begins with the main character, presumably a coward, fleeing a battle. The prologue introduces viewers to an old war veteran the night before said battle, and his battle with his inner demons (and reasons for fighting.) It establishes what's going on in the world, we get to meet this old man who has plenty of regrets and a desire for payback, and ultimately, is a spring board for the first chapter.


----------



## Mindfire (Apr 19, 2012)

Phin Scardaw said:


> The power of the One Ring is badly portrayed in this scene. It is meant to allow him to control the minds of those who use the other Great Rings, and to corrupt those under his power. Sauron's power is mainly insidious - that's how he fooled the Elves in the first place. The Ring in this prologue makes it seem as though it just lets Sauron hit people really hard.
> 
> In the book, Gandalf is exactly the one who tells Frodo about Sauron and the One Ring. While this scene does contain important exposition, I wouldn't say it qualifies as an "info-dump" because Frodo is learning vital information, and experiencing real fear. As a reader, you learn these things simultaneously, and this allows one to relate to Frodo - for your fear and feelings of uncertainty are mirrored by his.
> 
> ...



That's a bad comparison. Part of the point of the movie was figuring out what the Matrix was, so of course giving away The Reveal in the beginning would be a bad move. But with LOTR, there's nothing TO give away. There's no mystery. LOTR doesn't have a big "reveal" moment, so there's nothing to spoil. The audience should know what the ring is, who made it, and why it's dangerous, otherwise they simply won't care about the plot. The Prologue to the first film is what establishes Sauron as a threat because its the only time we see him in action. We know how dangerous he is, so we know what the stakes are. If we don't see that, we're not going to really care whether he gets the ring or not. He'll just be another unseen bogeyman. That may work for horror, but for fantasy, not so much. It's kinda like the bit with Vader on Princess Leia's ship in Star Wars. It establishes the threat. If we never saw that, we might not care about the rest of the film. Less is not always more. Sometimes Just Enough is Just Enough. Books and movies are very different mediums. Movies are visual. If the audience doesn't _see _it, then it doesn't really matter. You can have the audience imagine things for themselves in a book. But in a movie? It'd never work.


----------



## Cirias (Apr 19, 2012)

I think prologues have become a particularly common feature of fantasy fiction. I think the reason a lot of writers use them is because they are a familiar way into a story among the genre. I personally stopped adding prologues to all of my WIPs a couple of years back, when I realised I should have the confidence not to follow the fantasy conventions so rigidly.


----------



## Phin Scardaw (Apr 19, 2012)

Mindfire said:


> That's a bad comparison. Part of the point of the movie was figuring out what the Matrix was, so of course giving away The Reveal in the beginning would be a bad move. But with LOTR, there's nothing TO give away. There's no mystery. LOTR doesn't have a big "reveal" moment, so there's nothing to spoil. The audience should know what the ring is, who made it, and why it's dangerous, otherwise they simply won't care about the plot. The Prologue to the first film is what establishes Sauron as a threat because its the only time we see him in action. We know how dangerous he is, so we know what the stakes are. If we don't see that, we're not going to really care whether he gets the ring or not.



There's some saying in theatre about how most of acting is _reacting_. The audience responds more to a moment of violence, for instance, if the actor who receives the blow is convincing in their reaction of pain. The one who strikes is not as vital to the scene (in theory). This is how the audience's sympathies are manipulated toward an emotive catharsis. 

I firmly believe that in this case, Sauron's power could be established MORE effectively than it was in the prologue of the film by using exactly the same means as in the book. Imagine an extended scene in which Gandalf tells Frodo by the side of the fire all about the Ring and how it was made, and used to do terrible things. They might have portrayed a shadowy scene in the flames that Frodo is imagining, in which the Ring is won, and Sauron defeated. Frodo's sheer terror, and the artfulness of a scene like this that was well done would, in my opinion, make me not only more afraid of Sauron than I was in the Prologue (in which I felt no dread of him at all - a moment of movie magic I was truly sad not to experience) and also I would feel a stronger bond with Frodo, because I shared his fear. This exchange between Gandalf and Frodo does exist, but is too brief for my liking.

In contrast to all this, Jackson's faithful introduction and handling of the Balrog is far more effective in deriving fear and excitement from the audience (or from me at least) because we know almost nothing about it, we have no idea what it's capable of - all we know is that Gandalf says to run away from it, and that the Elf is terrified of it (as are the Orcs). All we get is its name, and the knowledge that it's a "demon of the ancient world". We know that it destroyed the Dwarves who'd returned to Moria as well. All of these elements create a monster that is truly terrifying - and that is what makes it such a powerful moment (one of the best in the book for sure, and perhaps Jackson's greatest victory in capturing it onscreen) when Gandalf stands up to the Balrog and apparently defeats it. If it had been Sauron that had challenged Gandalf, the audience would not have felt nearly as excited I believe because everyone present would have been thinking: "Oh, all you have to do is cut the Ring off the dude's finger and he explodes!" 

I can go on and on about this, tho... 

I'd say that if the films needed a Prologue at all, it would have included Beren and Luthien stealing the Silmarils from Morgoth's crown. Show HIS defeat, and what it cost the Free Peoples - and then from there the prologue narrative can introduce Sauron that takes the place of Morgoth, creating the Rings of Power. But leave Sauron in a placement of power, don't show him defeated! You can insinuate that the Ring was taken from him, and lost, but please oh please don't show the Big Bad Guy explode in your opening scene!!! 

A prologue should make you curious and excited to see more, not make you roll your eyes and say, "Thanks for the Cliff Notes - can we get started already?!?!"


----------



## The Dark One (Apr 21, 2012)

As far as I can tell, the best reason to use a prologue is to tell the readers a secret that the main characters don't yet know. This can add both intrigue and dramatic tension to the unfolding plot as the reader watches the main character being drawn into something that they know (a bit) about but also know that the MC doesn't.

Bernard Cornwell uses prologues to very good effect in the Sharpe series (plus the occasional epilogue). Cornwell is very clever with his epilogues - never quite gives you full closure, which leaves you gagging for the next book.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 21, 2012)

The Dark One said:


> As far as I can tell, the best reason to use a prologue is to tell the readers a secret that the main characters don't yet know.



I don't understand why you need a prologue to accomplish this.


----------



## Devor (Apr 21, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> I don't understand why you need a prologue to accomplish this.



If you're locked into a strict 3rd Person POV, how else would you do it?


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 21, 2012)

Devor said:


> If you're locked into a strict 3rd Person POV, how else would you do it?



Just change viewpoint characters.

And why would you be "locked" into a POV?


----------



## Devor (Apr 21, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> And why would you be "locked" into a POV?



It works for many stories to focus on just one character.  Switching POV for just a chapter in the middle of a book can break the flow of the story.  Switching POVs for just Chapter 1 might as well be called a prologue, in terms of the function it plays in the story.


----------



## Steerpike (Apr 21, 2012)

Yeah, it can be done that way, but I'd still like to see it as chapter 1 if it is actually part of the story. If it isn't part of the story, then I prefer that the book start where the story starts. Ultimately, there are many effective ways to communicate the information, and the writer isn't locked into a strict POV unless he chooses to be. I haven't come across stories that I felt would only work with that kind of POV, but some authors may feel that way as writing. Ultimately, you have to go with your own vision, but that approach is not my preference.


----------



## Devor (Apr 21, 2012)

Steerpike said:


> Yeah, it can be done that way, but I'd still like to see it as chapter 1 if it is actually part of the story. If it isn't part of the story, then I prefer that the book start where the story starts.



For the most part I think that you should try to avoid having a disconnected mini-chapter labelled "Prologue" in your book.  But if you build up a prologue's content a little and relabel it as chapter 1, I would still call it a prologue in terms of the story structure.  It serves the purpose of conveying information to set the mood and foreshadow the story's direction for the reader before focusing on the MC.

Harry Potter started with a prologue in which Harry was left on the doorstep, and then it told the story from Harry's strict POV.  Does it's labeling or length change anything?  It's highly important to the story, and yet the chapter is still skippable, in the sense that the facts conveyed in that chapter will be repeated for the reader when Harry learns them himself.  But I'm not sure readers would be able to capture a sense of the story and be drawn in as quickly without it.

People have mentioned the prologue in Game of Thrones, and it's a different animal.  It sets the mood, and the eventual direction of the story, which can be essential for many readers.  But it ties weakly into the first half of the book and feels in some ways like it could have been tacked on at the end.  In that case I think the prologue could have been better planned so that it would have more relevance to the plotline, but I'm not sure that it wasn't necessary to establish the direction and eventual conflict for readers.

Of course, if the conflict were to start right away, there shouldn't be a need for a prologue, except possibly for the much-hated info-dump variety.


----------



## Christopher Wright (Apr 22, 2012)

Prologues are fine if you want to use them, and skippable if you don't. Beyond that it all gets to personal taste and general consensus, and the plain fact is, 50 years from now general consesus will change and whatever is popular now will be considered antiquitated, whatever was edgy now will seem trite, and so on.

And since you can't plan for what will be considered good 50 years from now, you can either try to deliberately aim for what you think the modern audience will like and/or expect, or you can just do it however the heck you want and take your lumps however it goes.


----------

