# Prologue, yay or nay?



## Gribba (Jun 6, 2017)

I found out that 24 hours is just not enough for each day, I need a few more hours... so I have not had the time to, well, do much writing or other fun things...   So I do apologizes if this question has been done before.


Prologue, yay or nay? and why?

Do you as a reader or as a writer think it is unnecessary to have prologue? and why?
Do you as a reader or as a writer like to have prologue? and why? 

What expectations do you have and what do you want, from the prologue, when you read or when you write?
and do you think it is possible to break the rules with the prologue and still make it work?


----------



## FifthView (Jun 6, 2017)

Normally, I'm a "no prologue" guy, at least for my writing. I've taken a hard stance on this before...but if I buy a book that happens to have a prologue, that won't keep me from reading the book. 

I do still have a problem with long prologues. A page or two, maybe three or four, to set up some interesting situation would be my ideal for prologues.

Depending on the book, prologues can easily disappear for me as I read on. I forget them. This would be the most useless kind, in my opinion. But a prologue that can color the rest of the book or at least the first few chapters of the book? That's fine. Often, this would be the sort that gives a little insight into a character's history before the opening of the main book. E.g., I was reading the Amazon excerpt to Bardugo's _Shadow and Bone_ the other day (I've not read the series yet), and it starts with a "Before" (i.e., prologue) giving us a short back history for the MC and a little world building. That's fine. For a horror novel, I'd be fine with a short prologue that shows the beasty or baddie doing something horrifying; that'd set up what's to come, particularly the oblivious MCs, to get me through the first few chapters.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 6, 2017)

As a reader I'm indifferent to prologues.  Great books have them, or don't have them.  Terrible books have them, or don't have them.  I've yet to see a prologue that has even the least impact on how much I liked a book.  I'm not really sure why some folks get hung up on them.

As a writer, I'm trying not to use them due to the bad reputation they currently have.  I'm only on my first novel and it doesn't use one, or need one, but I won't hesitate to use a prologue the moment I deem one needed.


----------



## pmmg (Jun 6, 2017)

*Prologue, yay or nay? and why?*
I believe in giving the story what it needs, so if I thought a prolog was called for, than I would put one in. Otherwise, I would not look to include one.



*What expectations do you have and what do you want, from the prologue, when you read or when you write?*

I tend to think of prologs as a place to give information about the story (infodump maybe) that will have play during the story, of which the character may or may not know.

If I was to write one, I would certainly avoid making an infodump (or try to), and try to show a scene with compelling events and characters, as I would approach the rest of a story I would try to write.

*
and do you think it is possible to break the rules with the prologue and still make it work?*

Absolutely. If you can pull this off, I would encourage you to go for it.



My feeling on prologs in general though...

Well, as a reader, I tend to skip them. Sometimes I go back and read them when I realize I am just missing stuff from the story. And sometimes I read them later as a way learning more neat things about the tale.

As a writer, I usually try to find a way to get the extra information in as part of the prose. Its not always a easy feat.


----------



## RedAngel (Jun 6, 2017)

I can't say I am against them, but I am also typically do not enjoy them. 

The first thing that comes to mind about a prologue is that they almost always come in the form of an info dump or one long chapter of tell vs show in which something has already happened that is crucial to what will happen next in the plot.

I think that if you can skip the prologue and read the rest of the story and still get the info contained in it then you could forego adding it. Or if it is utterly needed or story breaking without it then you could just as easily call that chapter one and go from there. Or you could work it into the story in chapter one as well as throughout the story and still be fine.

I honestly do not remember any stories that had a memorable prologue.


----------



## Eric Hawke (Jun 6, 2017)

There are good prologues and there are unnecessary prologues.

If, say, the first few chapters doesn't represent the novel/series as a whole all that well, then a prologue that does just this, can be useful, so that you can set the tone, and give us a taste of what's to come. Usually in fantasy, this means some pretty epic stuff.

But regardless of how you do it, it's usually best to cut the prologue pretty short, and not include too much world building and history etc.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 6, 2017)

I'm not sure there are any necessary prologues (i.e. prologues that are necessary _as_ prologues). They're a stylistic choice. I tend not to like them, primarily because of how they're handled, which is related to the nature of the prologue as a device. I am not shy about skipping them entirely. I've read advice from time to time that says not to put anything critical in a prologue, because many readers skip them, though I suppose it is fair to ask whether the prologue should even be there if there is nothing in it critical to the story.


----------



## Mytherea (Jun 6, 2017)

Okay, so, first off, as a reader, I tend to skip the prologue when I'm browsing books, _only _because prologues often are written with a different tone or voice, and might not be reflective of what I'm signing up for in the rest of the book. So I glance at the first line or two, then flip to chapter 1 (there's a few books, say, that have a prologue in first person but the book is in third, or vice versa, and many are from the PoV of a character who might not be a narrator later, and so on).  

As a reader, when I sit down to read a book with a prologue, I read the prologue and don't care much either way _unless _as a writer, I see the bones of the craft underneath. Then I crit while I read til I get sucked into the story again (though, to be fair, I do that with anything, beginning, middle, end, though I'm a little more critical of prologues and first chapters).  

As for whether or not the story needs a prologue, I only ask why is the prologue there. And does it work. The only thing I expect is that the prologue is there for a good reason (but then, I have the same thought about first chapters). Is the story starting in the right place? Is it giving a feel for the story that'll follow? Could any of the information be integrated seamlessly in a scene that happens later, and lose nothing? (If the latter, maybe no prologue)

What I want in a prologue is simple (and pretty much what I want in chapter 1 too): a character with a goal and something happening that's interesting. I really like it when an interesting character with a goal does something interesting in an interesting place (also, this is super subjective and what I find interesting isn't necessarily what all people find interesting, so really, what do you find interesting? Write that). I also want it to have direct impact on the rest of the book. None of that creation story stuff, unless you're Tolkien or Eddings (or you do it damn well; if it's done damn well, I won't care, 'cause I'll be munching through pages regardless). 

I don't care about length; one of my favorite authors has a trilogy where each book starts off with what could be considered an extended prologue that takes place about 1000 years before the main story, and each "prologue" is easily a fifth of the whole book. But then, those prologues directly tie into the external plot and the character's internal arc, and the rest of the book, though it might make sense, wouldn't have the impact or depth without that opening chapter. Same for the prologue being half a page long; one of my other favorite authors does that in her first novel, and it's entirely necessary 'cause it sets up everything for the first two books (and the fifth, and maybe the seventh).  

As a writer, personally, I don't use prologues. Much. Sometimes, I'll have a prologue when I'm drafting, which is essentially just me throat-clearing and getting my thoughts in order before starting off. Those get cut before the end. Then again, this is subject to change, seeing that I'm seriously considering putting in a "three years earlier" semi-prologue as my first chapter in my new novel, but I'm still on the fence about it. Include it, and the backstory is shown in a scene and you _know _what happened, so certain events immediately after have more emotional significance for the reader. Keep it out, and there's a mystery thread running through the book, pulling the reader along. Basically, both methods have pros. Picking one or the other would have cons. Thus, beta readers. 

Long post, short: does it work for the story? If you cut it, would things fall apart? Or lack a dimension that would elevate it from "meh" to "damn"? If it does, and would, then keep it. If it's getting in the way of the story, then like anything else that gets in the way of a story, it's getting jettisoned out of an airlock. 

And, in regards to "rules" about prologues (or any kind of "rules" in any art form), to quote Barbossa, they're "more 'guidelines' than actual rules." Except grammar. Break that stuff at your own peril, for clarity is then at risk, and without clarity, there's confusion, and with confusion comes miscommunication, the death-sentence of writing. 

Shutting up now. This is a long reply.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jun 6, 2017)

The thing about a prologue is that it creates a delay in getting to the actual story. It delays the hook, and that's not to the advantage of either reader or writer. If it doesn't delay the hook, then is it actually a prologue, or is it rather chapter one?

As a reader, I don't expect much from the prologue beyond what I will be able to glean from the story, so I skim the prologue and get on with reading chapter one. Occasionally some passage in the story proper will refer to something in the prologue, and if that happens and I need to, I'll go back then and read the prologue more carefully.

I feel as though a prologue is the author's way of saying one of two things, both being somewhat evil. One thing the prologue might be saying is, okay, reader, I know you aren't very smart, so let me tell you some things up front so you don't have to figure them out yourself while reading the rest of the story. The other thing the prologue might be saying is that the author feels incapable of making the story understandable without the prologue. In short, the presence of a prologue is an indication to me that either the author views me, the reader, as dumb, or the author feels inept.

As a writer, I've sometimes fallen into the trap of thinking that up-front material was necessary for a reader to understand my story. But lately I try to create subtext that will help guide the reader, and not try to force the reader to experience the story exactly as I envision it.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 6, 2017)

I guess I'm the odd man out here--I'm unable to follow the logic of skipping prologues or deeming them somehow wrong before reading them (how one determines that it isn't relevant without having read it is quite beyond me).

In every argument I've seen against them here and elsewhere, it is BAD WRITING or POOR DECISION MAKING that is being argued against, not prologues directly.  Is there an argument that explains why prologues are inherently bad that doesn't point to poor technique as the cause?  That's something I'd be interested in hearing.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 6, 2017)

Incanus said:


> I guess I'm the odd man out here--I'm unable to follow the logic of skipping prologues or deeming them somehow wrong before reading them (how one determines that it isn't relevant without having read it is quite beyond me).
> 
> In every argument I've seen against them here and elsewhere, it is BAD WRITING or POOR DECISION MAKING that is being argued against, not prologues directly.  Is there an argument that explains why prologues are inherently bad that doesn't point to poor technique as the cause?  That's something I'd be interested in hearing.



It's often poor technique, and the understanding that prologues are so often poorly done, that makes people avoid them. It isn't only that, however. By their very nature, and indeed as reflected in the word 'prologue,' we're dealing with something that even the author thinks comes _before_ the story. I'd rather just get into the story, personally. It's a subjective preference in that regard.


----------



## pmmg (Jun 6, 2017)

I am not sure anyone has said they are bad. But many people are saying they skip them and do not read them. So, if the audience does not want to read them, I think it may be more incumbent on the author to come up with the reason why. Cause I can write the best prolog ever, and still many to most readers will skip it.

I might also argue, that perhaps the reason so many people skip them, is due somewhat to an earned reputation.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 6, 2017)

So surely there must be examples of great books with poor/useless prologues?  I've never seen it myself.

Indeed, I can think of one example where the prologue was the best part of the book:  The Way of Kings.

I acknowledge that people skip prologues, but the reasons given still don't make any sense to me.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 6, 2017)

Yeah, I've never skipped reading a prologue. I've occasionally groaned but pushed through it. (With video games, I tend to be a completionist. I guess the same goes for books.)  Some have worked better than others.


----------



## Deleted member 4265 (Jun 6, 2017)

I think the question is less about whether or not prologues should be used but more about when to use them.

I honestly don't know the answer because most prologues I've read have been bad. One of the few places I've seen them work has been in books where that are told in a single POV but the prologue delves briefly into someone else's POV to give the reader important information. This can work very well in mystery novels where the prologue shows the reader something very strange or seemingly impossible and the MC spends the rest of book trying to solve the puzzle.

Flash forwards prologues can also work, and in my opinion they're usually better than flash backs in this regard because most flash back prologues are just excuses to info-dump things that could've been dealt with more eloquently within the main body of the text.

Prologues that have never worked for me personally include: the story of the MC's birth and myths, legends and other world building stuff.

So in my opinion, the best way to use prologues is to create a sense of mystery and have the reader asking how does this relate to the rest of the story? If a prologue doesn't make me want to know what's going on, then its failed for me. If the payoff is a letdown, then its failed for me. But that's just my opinion.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jun 6, 2017)

Incanus said:


> I guess I'm the odd man out here--I'm unable to follow the logic of skipping prologues or deeming them somehow wrong before reading them (how one determines that it isn't relevant without having read it is quite beyond me).
> 
> In every argument I've seen against them here and elsewhere, it is BAD WRITING or POOR DECISION MAKING that is being argued against, not prologues directly.  Is there an argument that explains why prologues are inherently bad that doesn't point to poor technique as the cause?  That's something I'd be interested in hearing.



Prologues are bad because the label of being a prologue identifies the piece as not where the real story starts, and thus not of as much importance as chapter one. I as an anxious reader am more than willing to pay less attention to the less important material and get on with the real story. The label "prologue" has a psychological effect on the reader, and that's a problem with it, aside from technique.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 6, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> Prologues are bad because the label of being a prologue identifies the piece as not where the real story starts, and thus not of as much importance as chapter one. I as an anxious reader am more than willing to pay less attention to the less important material and get on with the real story. The label "prologue" has a psychological effect on the reader, and that's a problem with it, aside from technique.



Prologues are neither good nor bad in the same way that the concept of paragraphs are neither good nor bad.  I'm not sure what the definition of 'the real story' might be, but I've read plenty of prologues that would seem to be where the real story starts.  No prologue has ever had a psychological effect on me beyond the material itself, negative or otherwise.

This certainly is a hang up for a lot of folks, that's for sure.  For myself, I don't get it, but that's OK.


----------



## Russ (Jun 6, 2017)

First off I think a search of this site will lead the OP to many vigorous and thorough discussions on the subject of prologues.

The conventional wisdom on prologues in the publishing industry, is that, with the exception of limited specific purposes,  prologues are not well appreciated.

They delay getting into the story, they delay connecting the the protagonist, they are often info dumps, they are often poorly executed etc.  

I too often skip prologues.  IF I want to read a history or socialogy text I will read one.  Build your world building into the narrative.

Having said all that, there are times were a well executed prologue can be a suitable addition.

The classic example is when the true initiating event of the story is significantly temporally or geographically distant from the protagonists entry into the plot, and just summarizing it would be a disservice.  This is rarer than you think.

Oddly enough, a top writing teacher and author, Steve Berry generally preaches against prologues for a number of reasons, but every one of his Cotton Malone books has one because of the fact they are all based on a historical mystery or incident coming back to haunt the present.  He executes them very well if you are looking for examples.

Although I couldn't prove it, I suspect that due to the nature of the genre and the nature of the genre reader, fantasy readers are slightly more tolerant of prologues than readers of other genres, but I don't think that should be taken as license to do prologues except when they are absolutely necessary.

Like most things in writing, I think if you have a very strong feeling that something is essential to the story you are telling, put it in.  IF you are waffling on something or unsure, that is where writing "rules" or conventional wisdom can help you.

And be darned sure you could't solve your prologue problem by putting "Chapter One" on the first page of it.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jun 6, 2017)

Incanus said:


> Prologues are neither good nor bad in the same way that the concept of paragraphs are neither good nor bad.  I'm not sure what the definition of 'the real story' might be, but I've read plenty of prologues that would seem to be where the real story starts.  No prologue has ever had a psychological effect on me beyond the material itself, negative or otherwise.
> 
> This certainly is a hang up for a lot of folks, that's for sure.  For myself, I don't get it, but that's OK.



The concept of a prologue is far different than the concept of a paragraph. For one thing, writers don't put the word "paragraph" in front of their paragraphs. It's the label "prologue" that makes the prologue a bad thing. The actual text of the prologue might be great or not, just as the text of a paragraph might be great or not, with that I agree. And some people might be immune to the psychological effects of the "prologue" label. But in general, according to the comments I've read in numerous venues, prologues labeled as such are less well received than if they had simply been called, "Chapter One." That, to me, makes the use of the word "prologue" at the beginning of the opening material of a book an inherently bad idea.

As for the "real story" starting in the prologue, why was the prologue in that case not called, "Chapter One"? Calling it a prologue if the story really started there makes no sense to me.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 6, 2017)

Game of Thrones has a prologue, the book wouldn't be the same without it. But it's not a traditional infodump prologue. The prologue is used to "show" what would otherwise need to be "told". I am all for this sort of prologue. The infodump prologue, I have to admit, I am not fond of. These tend to be poorly executed and generally flat unnecessary.

All that said, my editor talked me into a one page-ish intro, and I fought it hard, and only justified it for myself after writing it in an interesting way. It could be called a prologue, except it's actually a flash forward (go figure!) to a mysterious voice speaking to a character the reader won't meet for several chapters, several days after the book begins. And it presents itself without quotes, so it gives a feel of being spoken to directly for the reader. Now, I love it. Friggin' love it. The way the ending weaves into the narrative. And of course, it sets up a lot of stuff. But, I also spent a lot of time on the opening line, made it one where if I was a reader who picked up this book and saw this little intro I wouldn't be tempted to skip it because it doesn't say "chapter 1".

So, my final judgment is: If it works, it works. Damn, I say that so often, LOL.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 6, 2017)

One typical reason can be: If a prologue is basically a chapter one, it can be called prologue as an indicator that the main character is not involved in this chapter, since there is often the expectation that chapter 1 is the intro to the MC. Can be plenty of reasons, this is one off top of my head.



Michael K. Eidson said:


> The concept of a prologue is far different than the concept of a paragraph. For one thing, writers don't put the word "paragraph" in front of their paragraphs. It's the label "prologue" that makes the prologue a bad thing. The actual text of the prologue might be great or not, just as the text of a paragraph might be great or not, with that I agree. And some people might be immune to the psychological effects of the "prologue" label. But in general, according to the comments I've read in numerous venues, prologues labeled as such are less well received than if they had simply been called, "Chapter One." That, to me, makes the use of the word "prologue" at the beginning of the opening material of a book an inherently bad idea.
> 
> As for the "real story" starting in the prologue, why was the prologue in that case not called, "Chapter One"? Calling it a prologue if the story really started there makes no sense to me.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jun 6, 2017)

^My eyes glaze over even in trying to read the prologue to GoT... The second I see the word "Prologue," I'm already fighting back boredom. My loss, I suppose.


----------



## Penpilot (Jun 6, 2017)

Prologues are tools. There's a right time to use them and a wrong time.

IMHO a prologue should not be an info dump. This instance I think is what turns people off. Prologues should give insight and add something to the story that normally would not be there if left unread. 

For example, Game of Thrones. (It's been a while since I've read the prologue so forgive me if I get a few details a bit wrong.)

Any way, Game of Thrones uses a prologue that sets up the White Walkers, the Nights Watch, the Wildlings, and probably the true overarching story of the series, Westeros vs. the White Walkers.

It also gives insight to the world that would not be there if it all started with Chapter 1. It introduces the fallibility of Ned Stark and his honor and that this world is cruel and unfair, which foreshadows what's to come for Ned. In the prologue, some Night's Watchmen run into White Walkers and they're all killed except one. That survivor gets caught by Ned and is executed for killing his commander and  desertion, but because of the prologue, we know that survivor wasn't a deserter, and they did not kill their commander. And we know for a fact that these White Walkers of legend are in fact real, not just fables.

Without the prologue, the "deserter" is just a deserter. The White Walkers are just fables. And Ned isn't flawed, and the world is fair and just, instead of what it really is.

Another example, Star Wars Episode IV. Not only does it have the famous info dump craw. That whole opening sequence with the rebel ship and Princess Leia IMHO is a prologue. The "real" story doesn't start until Luke is introduced. If you do a bit of a though exercise and in your head just start the movie with Luke on Tatooine watching the suns set, and don't have any of the elements of the empire's search in there until Luke acquires the droids, the story still makes sense, but it loses some things, like the tension of R2-D2 almost being left behind when C3PO is sold to Luke and his uncle, and a tangible example of the threat of the Empire and the power of the Force.

My 2 Cents


----------



## Incanus (Jun 6, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> The concept of a prologue is far different than the concept of a paragraph.



Just wanted to clarify that that isn't what I said.  Only the reason why neither is good or bad is what is similar, not the concepts.  They are both tools, and tools aren't good or bad, only the way they're used is.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 6, 2017)

Hmmm, interesting. Now I'm compelled to post my prologue and epilogue to see people's thoughts. I usually don't have a problem with prologues, for the reasons penpilot gave about GRRM... it sets up the world in a way the mc might not know about. I think about it like the way the film version of Jurassic Park had the T. rex eat the park employee at the beginning. It was a short, 2 min clip, of some unidentified monster eating the worker. It posed just the right questions and worked as the hook to set up the scenario and dramatic irony (where the audience knows more than the mc). That's what a good prologue does.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 6, 2017)

Another good way to think of "good" prologue IMO (using movies) is James Bond. Good fun action which sucks the viewer in, with something that will be plot relevant in a while, and then we go into the meat of the story.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 6, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> ^My eyes glaze over even in trying to read the prologue to GoT... The second I see the word "Prologue," I'm already fighting back boredom. My loss, I suppose.



Is there a phobia involving prologues? The irrational dislike of anything labeled prologue, heh heh.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 6, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Another good way to think of "good" prologue IMO (using movies) is James Bond. Good fun action which sucks the viewer in, with something that will be plot relevant in a while, and then we go into the meat of the story.



But if you look at Fleming's books does he call these prologues? He doesn't in the ones that I have. Maybe in some of the others.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 7, 2017)

Lee Child does the same thing... I'm going to go get one now and see if he calls it a prologue... 

Aaaaaaaaaand.... Yes. Yes he does. Huge black letters that say "Prologue."


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 7, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Lee Child does the same thing... I'm going to go get one now and see if he calls it a prologue...
> 
> Aaaaaaaaaand.... Yes. Yes he does. Huge black letters that say "Prologue."



I don't think he uses prologues in most of his novels.


----------



## Aurora (Jun 7, 2017)

GRR Martin, imo, is the only one that's done it right in a long time. I don't normally read Prologues but his captivated me. Prologues are also missing from many works that I read these days. It'd be nice to have them in.


----------



## Russ (Jun 7, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> I don't think he uses prologues in most of his novels.



Now I am going to have to go back and look.  Oddly enough though Lee often works and discusses his books with Steve Berry who I mentioned above.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Jun 7, 2017)

If they serve as a sort of prologue (Martin didn't need to call his a prologue, my assumption is it was called prologue because the character is never a POV again) it's a prologue. Bond absolutely does not have a traditional prologue. But, I am against most all info dump traditional prologues. I'm not a fan of Fleming's writing, so I don't really recall, but in his period, I don't think you had the chapter 1 style prologue.



Steerpike said:


> But if you look at Fleming's books does he call these prologues? He doesn't in the ones that I have. Maybe in some of the others.


----------



## FifthView (Jun 7, 2017)

The first chapter of the first Harry Potter book is basically a long prologue. But it's called Chapter One. Rowling introduces the Dursleys, the Wizarding World, Harry and the moniker "The Boy Who Lived" in a broad omniscient voice before leaping forward about ten years and squeezing down to a more limited POV approach in the second chapter. 

Would the book have read differently if Chapter One had been called Prologue? Probably a tiny bit, but not much. The set-up would have seemed more pointed, accentuated, rather than merely part of the story. The new reader believes he's in the main story while reading the first chapter, not knowing there's going to be a leap in time and change in narrative approach with the second chapter. Had it been called a prologue, that would have signaled the (minor) disjunction ahead of time.

I do think the example from ASOIAF is good. We have the introduction of a looming threat before we're thrown into narrative about oblivious and, sometimes, petty nobles going about their lives and intrigues. If GRRM had decided not to write a prologue for book one, he'd've needed to work that threat into that early narrative which would have thrown things off-kilter I think. I remember reading the first book and wondering when the shoe would drop (the threat from up north) but ultimately becoming engrossed in the intrigue involving the noble families.

Edit: Incidentally, _disjunction_ is one of my favorite words, and I might often use it loosely. But I do think it's a good word to use when describing prologues. The prologue is set off from the rest of the story for some reason; or, at least, from the beginning chapters if not the whole story. The ASOIAF example is interesting, because disjunction is particularly apropos. We have these nobles mucking about with their intrigues while being oblivious of the threat that looms; the prologue is like a looming reality in the books not addressed in much detail for a long time after that prologue. Disjunction, between reality and the little worries and concerns of these characters.


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 7, 2017)

I disagree that Ch1 of Potter is a prologue. It introduces the protagonist and shows the protagonist in his daily setting. That's standard Ch.1 task list. A prologue would be if Rowling had opened with a scene with Voldemort, or with Harry's parents, or Dumbledore at the school. As someone else on the thread said, a prologue is something that goes back before the story and/or involves people other than the protagonist. That may sound arbitrary, but without some clear line there really would be no difference between Prologue and Chapter One.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 7, 2017)

Hmmmm, I would have agreed with Fifthview that chapter one of HP was a prologue. It was from the perspective of Mr. Dursley and showed his contempt for the infant Harry. 

Ok, I'm posting mine in the showcase to see what you guys think... prologue? Or chapter one?


----------



## FifthView (Jun 7, 2017)

Chapter one of _Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone_ is in omniscient third. In an old thread called "Ye old Storyteller..." I posted some excerpts in discussing the omniscient POV of that chapter. It does focus mostly in on Mr. Dursley for the first half, introducing the Dursely's and their paranoia about the Wizarding World. Then it shifts to Dumbledore and McGonagall outside on the street having a discussion about what has gone before, why they are there. Hagrid shows up with the infant Harry only at the very end of the chapter. This is all a basic setup for the main story that starts in Chapter Two.


----------



## Heliotrope (Jun 7, 2017)

Yes! That's right. I forgot about the light post stuff. Still a prologue in my mind.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 7, 2017)

Must be that either Rowling, or the publisher, or both, either didn't consider it a prologue or didn't want to call it that. Either motivation makes for an interesting discussion.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 7, 2017)

My problem when it comes to prologue relates most directly to my volume of reading material. I have close to 100 unread books in my stack of things to get to eventually, and I have only recently made a point of getting through them faster than I add to the stack.

When I'm in the bookstore, I browse through a lot of books across many different genre sections. As a practical matter, books from authors I don't already know get a fairly cursory examination from me. If something about the cover, or a quote from another author on the cover grabs my attention, I'll look at it (I don't read the blurbs on back). When I pick it up, the first thing I do is go to the first page to read a paragraph or two. If the first page happens to be a prologue, I've been known to simply put the book back (I'm trying to get better about this, but honestly I need a mechanism to whittle down potential reads, and since I tend not to like prologues to begin with that's an easy criterion). If the first few paragraphs of the book grab my attention, I'll probably buy it. Otherwise it goes back on the shelf.

The above applies to authors I don't know, and haven't been recommended to me. I buy a lot of books from authors I've never read before. If it is an author I already know I like, or that someone I trust has recommended to me, then none of the above applies. 

Also, if it is an author I've already read and didn't like, none of this applies as the likelihood I'll buy another book by that person approaches zero.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jun 7, 2017)

Demesnedenoir said:


> Is there a phobia involving prologues? The irrational dislike of anything labeled prologue, heh heh.



When the dislike is based on five decades of reading, I wouldn't think the word "irrational" appropriate. But as I've been saying, I do think it to be psychological in nature, so "phobia" might not be quite right but not too far off base either.

It's like with kale. My wife wants me to eat more of it, but I've eaten too much of it already, and all she has to do is mention the word, and I automatically want nothing to do with it. She cooked something containing ground kale recently, and I enjoyed the entrÃ©e just fine. She told me after the fact that kale was in it, and I was like, cool, I ate kale and liked it.

If the author doesn't call it a prologue, I could be fine with their opening material. They call it a prologue, and they've already asked me to balk at reading it. Not every reader is like me, but some are. I'm not the only one. Some of those readers will read the book anyway. Some of those readers will not give the book a chance. A book having a prologue labeled as such does not automatically stop me from reading it, but it's a huge strike against it, and what author wants to start out a relationship with a new reader with an automatic strike? Actually, it's more like two automatic strikes; one more, and you're out. Is it fair that some readers are this way? Not really. To change how these readers react to prologues, authors need to write good ones, when they write them. In the meantime, I'm not going to use them in my writing.



Incanus said:


> Just wanted to clarify that that isn't what I said.  Only the reason why neither is good or bad is what is similar, not the concepts.  They are both tools, and tools aren't good or bad, only the way they're used is.



Go back and closely read your earlier posts on this thread, and you'll see why I thought you were talking about concepts....


----------



## skip.knox (Jun 7, 2017)

FifthView's memory is better than mine. That opening is indeed prologue, according to my own measure.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 7, 2017)

@Michael--OK, I re-read my posts, but I don't see why you would think I was saying paragraphs and prologues are the same thing.  That's all right, I'll chalk it up to communication breakdown.

I'm curious where all these good books with terrible info-dumpy prologues can be found.  I have hundreds of fantasy books on my bookshelves and have been reading the genre non-stop since the late 70's.  I may be wrong but I don't think I own any books with info-dump prologues; I'll try to find one.  It's a mystery to me...


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 7, 2017)

There are some comments from agents at the link, below, regarding backstory, prologues, and infodumps. Some of these quotes could apply equally well to first chapters as prologues. I think the fact that the agents have taken time to mention these specific issues highlights how often they see problems in submissions that run along these lines.

There is more at the link. Somewhat tangential to the discussion here, but certainly related.
-------------------

“I’m not a fan of prologues, preferring to find myself in the midst of a moving plot on page one rather than being kept outside of it, or eased into it.”
– Michelle Andelman, Regal Literary


“Most agents hate prologues. Just make the first chapter relevant and well written.”
– Andrea Brown, Andrea Brown Literary Agency


“Prologues are usually a lazy way to give back-story chunks to the reader and can be handled with more finesse throughout the story. Damn the prologue, full speed ahead!”
– Laurie McLean, Foreword Literary

“Many writers express the character’s backstory before they get to the plot. Good writers will go back and cut that stuff out and get right to the plot. The character’s backstory stays with them — it’s in their DNA.”
– Adam Chromy, Movable Type Management


“I’m turned off when a writer feels the need to fill in all the backstory before starting the story; a story that opens on the protagonist’s mental reflection of their situation is a red flag.”
– Stephany Evans, FinePrint Literary Management


“One of the biggest problems is the ‘information dump’ in the first few pages, where the author is trying to tell us everything we supposedly need to know to understand the story. Getting to know characters in a story is like getting to know people in real life. You find out their personality and details of their life over time.”
– Rachelle Gardner, Books & Such Literary

How to Start Your Novel: Advice From Literary Agents


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jun 7, 2017)

Incanus said:


> Prologues are neither good nor bad in the same way that the *concept* of paragraphs are neither good nor bad.





Michael K. Eidson said:


> The *concept* of a prologue is far different than the *concept* of a paragraph.





Incanus said:


> Just wanted to clarify that that isn't what I said.  Only the reason why neither is good or bad is what is similar, not the *concepts*.





Michael K. Eidson said:


> Go back and closely read your earlier posts on this thread, and you'll see why I thought you were talking about *concepts*....





Incanus said:


> @Michael--OK, I re-read my posts, but I don't see why you would think I was saying paragraphs and prologues are the same thing.  That's all right, I'll chalk it up to communication breakdown.



Is my perspective clearer now?


----------



## Incanus (Jun 7, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> Is my perspective clearer now?



Not to me, I'm afraid.  I'm not following you at all here.  **shrug**


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jun 7, 2017)

Incanus said:


> Not to me, I'm afraid.  I'm not following you at all here.  **shrug**



When someone says they didn't say something and it's shown that they did, and then they refuse to accept it, there's no sense in saying anything more, so I won't.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 7, 2017)

Warning: let's not make things personal. That makes unicorns cry.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 7, 2017)

Funny.  This subject seems to cause a near-endless comedy of confusions.

If agents and publishers are rejecting these kinds of prologues, or making sure they're fixed before publishing, then why the need to skip prologues of published books, where, apparently, these issues have already been dealt with?

At first I thought we were talking about published books, but now we're talking about novels submitted to agents and publishers?

In any event, I can fully acknowledge that prologues are frowned upon without actually understanding the reasons why.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 7, 2017)

Incanus said:


> Funny.  This subject seems to cause a near-endless comedy of confusions.
> 
> If agents and publishers are rejecting these kinds of prologues, or making sure they're fixed before publishing, then why the need to skip prologues of published books, where, apparently, these issues have already been dealt with?
> 
> ...



One editor I spoke with suggested pitching the novel without the prologue, and then if you really felt strongly about having one, arguing over it once they've already agreed to take on the book. Though if it is pitched and accepted without one, maybe that's an indication you don't need it?


----------



## FifthView (Jun 7, 2017)

I'd hazard a guess and say that prologues should either _be_ the hook for the story or at least should _have_ a hook. In any case, the same things we'd consider doing in order to make the first chapter engaging should be considered when writing the prologue.

Also: Just as first chapters can establish character, setting, tone, whatever, a prologue can deliver important worldbuilding and character info without being an info dump. So yeah, prologues can be considered for the purposes of establishing some things about the story. But they need to be engaging and not merely there to dump that info on a reader.


----------



## Incanus (Jun 7, 2017)

FifthView said:


> I'd hazard a guess and say that prologues should either _be_ the hook for the story or at least should _have_ a hook. In any case, the same things we'd consider doing in order to make the first chapter engaging should be considered when writing the prologue.
> 
> Also: Just as first chapters can establish character, setting, tone, whatever, a prologue can deliver important worldbuilding and character info without being an info dump. So yeah, prologues can be considered for the purposes of establishing some things about the story. But they need to be engaging and not merely there to dump that info on a reader.



This makes perfect sense to me.  Of the books in my collection that use prologues (with or without the term), the overwhelming majority accomplish something like this.  And this is why I don't understand people's attitudes towards them.  There's something of a gap between what people are saying are in prologues, and what are actually in prologues.  I can't help but be more interested in the latter.


----------



## Michael K. Eidson (Jun 7, 2017)

Steerpike said:


> Warning: let's not make things personal. That makes unicorns cry.



A little late with this warning. Things got personal back on post #24.


----------



## Steerpike (Jun 7, 2017)

Michael K. Eidson said:


> A little late with this warning. Things got personal back on post #24.



We can agree to disagree on that score. Regardless of viewpoints on the history of the thread, I'm asking now that everyone simply get back on topic and discuss the subject matter of the thread without having to make personal comments regarding the individuals involved. To that end, let us now consider this matter closed and move on with the substantive discussion.

My thanks.


----------



## Alyssa (Jun 8, 2017)

When you're working in a complex world with an unreliable narrator, I have found that prologues can be quite helpful (even short single page prologues) in setting the general scene and feel of the book as well as pointing out important things that might not have otherwise been noted by your MC...

It's important though to tie it in tightly and seeing as it is always going to be dumping a little info, you need to fill in with hooks and hints and leads.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Aurora (Jun 8, 2017)

Heliotrope said:


> Hmmmm, I would have agreed with Fifthview that chapter one of HP was a prologue. It was from the perspective of Mr. Dursley and showed his contempt for the infant Harry.


I disagree. That was omniscient narrator, not a prologue, which is why it was written from his perspective.


----------



## Gribba (Jun 8, 2017)

I have to admit I did not expect some of the comments here. 

I am one of those people that just is unable to skip anything, I have to read it ALL!!! 
I have read prologues that make me shake my head and wonder why it was there but also read once that are just brilliant so I feel neutral when it comes to those. So I think I am a bit more like Mytherea when it comes to prologues.


I am surprised that there are actually people that drop it, i thought at least scanning it quickly, was a must. 
Reading the comments as to why some people do not read the prologue, is so interesting to me. I can see, that for some it is due to practical reasons that the prologue is not read, understandable. I find it very interesting how the prologue can be perceived as something so negative as this:


Michael K. Eidson said:


> ...
> I feel as though a prologue is the author's way of saying one of two things, both being somewhat evil. One thing the prologue might be saying is, okay, reader, I know you aren't very smart, so let me tell you some things up front so you don't have to figure them out yourself while reading the rest of the story. The other thing the prologue might be saying is that the author feels incapable of making the story understandable without the prologue. In short, the presence of a prologue is an indication to me that either the author views me, the reader, as dumb, or the author feels inept.
> ....





Russ said:


> The conventional wisdom on prologues in the publishing industry, is that, with the exception of limited specific purposes,  prologues are not well appreciated.
> [...]
> They delay getting into the story, they delay connecting the the protagonist, they are often info dumps, they are often poorly executed etc.





pmmg said:


> I might also argue, that perhaps the reason so many people skip them, is due somewhat to an earned reputation.


These comments made me think about the prologues, that I do not really remember so much anymore or just found odd, as they did not make any impact on the book, I can see how it might end up being seen in such negative light, when it happens again and again. 




Michael K. Eidson said:


> The thing about a prologue is that it creates a delay in getting to the actual story. It delays the hook, and that's not to the advantage of either reader or writer. If it doesn't delay the hook, then is it actually a prologue, or is it rather chapter one?


This I find very interesting, can a hook be in the prologue or is it chapter one... In The Way of Kings by Brandon Sanderson, the prologue has much info about the world but also a hook that is important part for the story as it happens years later (don't remember how many years later) and now I sit and question if it could have been chapter one? 
I need to read that one again. 

The last wish by Andrzej Sapkowski has this thing called 'The voice of reason' that appears between the stories in the book, and could be seen as prologues before each short story (the book is a collection of short stories taking place before the main Witcher Saga) but those short text are continuing a story as well, so what are they then? (In Blood of Elves he has not included any prologue or 'The voice of reason' that he used before). I have seen a similar use of short texts/prologues before each chapter before (don't remember right now what books it was), they were just called something else, are they then also a tool that has a bad rep or seen in more of a positive light? 




Demesnedenoir said:


> One typical reason can be: If a prologue is basically a chapter one, it can be called prologue as an indicator that the main character is not involved in this chapter, since there is often the expectation that chapter 1 is the intro to the MC. Can be plenty of reasons, this is one off top of my head.





Penpilot said:


> Prologues are tools. There's a right time to use them and a wrong time.
> ...Game of Thrones uses a prologue that sets up the White Walkers, the Nights Watch, the Wildlings, and probably the true overarching story of the series, Westeros vs. the White Walkers.
> [...]
> Without the prologue, the "deserter" is just a deserter. The White Walkers are just fables. And Ned isn't flawed, and the world is fair and just, instead of what it really is.





Alyssa said:


> When you're working in a complex world with an unreliable narrator, I have found that prologues can be quite helpful (even short single page prologues) in setting the general scene and feel of the book as well as pointing out important things that might not have otherwise been noted by your MC...
> 
> It's important though to tie it in tightly and seeing as it is always going to be dumping a little info, you need to fill in with hooks and hints and leads.


I think these are good points to keep in mind. 




Incanus said:


> In every argument I've seen against them here and elsewhere, it is BAD WRITING or POOR DECISION MAKING that is being argued against, not prologues directly.  Is there an argument that explains why prologues are inherently bad that doesn't point to poor technique as the cause?  That's something I'd be interested in hearing.


Good question but can it be evaluated without looking at, if it is bad writing or poor decision making, is there something else to judge it by and what? Are prologues talking down to the reader and/or info-dumping or something else that gets the negative reaction that it seem to have on some people?
And what makes a good/great prologue (for you)?




Devouring Wolf said:


> I think the question is less about whether or not prologues should be used but more about when to use them.
> [...]
> So in my opinion, the best way to use prologues is to create a sense of mystery and have the reader asking how does this relate to the rest of the story? If a prologue doesn't make me want to know what's going on, then its failed for me. If the payoff is a letdown, then its failed for me. But that's just my opinion.



I think your opinion on what prologues have to bring to the table is a good one, I like how you have some expectations but not contemning it beforehand (contemning might be a harsh word but I mean it in a mild way). 


:grouphug:


----------

