# Should we bother with prologues?



## Black Dragon (Feb 19, 2011)

Prologues are very popular in the fantasy genre.  But are they actually helpful?

Orson Scott Card once said the following:

"I have learned, as a book reviewer, that's it's usually best to skip the prologue entirely and begin with the story - as the author should also have done.  I have never - not once - found that by skipping the prologue I missed some information I needed in order to read the story; and when I have read the prologue first, I have never - not once - fount it interesting, helpful, or even understandable."

In my current project I do not have a prologue, although I have toyed with the idea.

What do you think?  Are prologues worth writing, or should they be skipped entirely?


----------



## Ravana (Feb 20, 2011)

Only if you have something to say in it. And keep in mind that most people won't read it, simply because it probably _doesn't_ include information vital to the story–if it did, you would've put the information in the story itself, right? That having been said, I have run across the occasional prologue that contains information which, if not vital, might be at least interesting… "historical" background on a well worked-up setting that the author felt could be skipped, but which might be of interest to some readers.


----------



## Donny Bruso (Feb 20, 2011)

I have a prologue on the larger of my current fantasy projects. I suppose the information in it isn't vital to the story, but I don't think it's particularly harmful or boring either. I used the prologue to more or less introduce one of my POV characters from another person's viewpoint, allowing him to be seen for what he actually is, without the bias we all build for ourselves in our heads.

Also, the prologue to that particular piece is one of the highest rated items in my portfolio on writing.com. I don't think that it means I've necessarily succeeded where so many others have failed, but in my opinion, prologues work better when you treat them as what they are supposed to be, a pre-chapter, not an excuse to load the reader up with all the historical and cultural information that you have created for your world and couldn't work into the actual text of the story. Put all that in an appendix at the end if you really feel you must include it. If the reader is interested in that after reading your story they will read that too.


----------



## willg71 (Feb 21, 2011)

I find it a shame that the prologue would be viewed as limiting if not useless. It is a perfect chance to contain a story within a story, mind you I'm not saying it need be thirty or more pages. A single page could do the trick, though not my style.  A linking continuity between proverbial works is what I'm talking about. A primer for the good read. Not only this but the data obtained from the prologue can be used as a tool to close out a series, to come to full  circle have you. I think it was the dark sword series that illustrates this well by example.  The prologue had nearly nothing to do with the tale other than as a brief and seemingly  inadequate explanation on how a civilization came to be. It later can be recognized as role reversals and In the end you learn of the consequences of the creation of such a civilization. Bare in mind, I am over simplifying that Great work but it is the prologue which makes that over simplification possible and allows readers to convey those concepts to others. With out it, I'm not so sure all readers would have grasped the intended ramifications.  So fine, limit your possibilities, throw away a clever tool you can use or not use as you see fit. As for me I think I'll stick with it.


----------



## Black Dragon (Feb 21, 2011)

Perhaps the problem is that too many authors use prologues as an information dump?

Personally, I prefer using prologues as a framing device.  An effective prologue can offer a glimpse of an earlier story and foreshadow what is to come.


----------



## Legerdemain (Feb 22, 2011)

Prologues in my mind should only set a scene that may need setting.  Truthfully, most authors find that they can do this easier to do after they've started.  For example, start the story, and then go, "I bet you're wondering how I came to be running from these wolf-people wearing nothing but an elk hide and loads of shame?"  going into some backstory.

Will, I do see the uses, but I would prefer to be more tactful in relaying the story within the story.  BD, I do think that mostly the prologue is an information dump for a lot of stories, and sadly, sometime this information takes the fun out of the story.  For example, if the Lord of the Ring movies went "By the way, there is a distinct possibly Gimli knew stories of some dwarves that were kidnapped or tortured by the wood elves, thus he very much dislikes them."  Right before the council, you'd be like, "Oh, that's why he doesn't like elves."  That said, it would also make you want to know the whole back-story between the two races, and you'd create a situation where you introduced a story that is not fleshed out in the book.  That can be a trap as well, if they like the prologue information but find the story isn't about the same exact sorts of things.

Does anyone else share my concerns?


----------



## Labochur (Feb 24, 2011)

I have also heard or read somewhere that prologues are not suggested and for new authors are considered illegal. Personally the novel I am writing now has a prologue but it's more of a history of the land than a prologue to the sory and probably wont be included in the final draft


----------



## Ophiucha (Feb 27, 2011)

Prologues that have any useful information in them are called "Chapter One".


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 5, 2011)

I've learned when you're writing a series, or even a trilogy... a prologue is a must. If only to remind your reader of what happened last in the book before LOL. My novel for instance has a 31 page prologue, this was a must since the prologue is almost a seperate entity from the rest of the novel, yet without it, my readers wouldn't understand certain key things in the rest of the novel. So yeah in some instances the prologue is good, it's the beginning of the story, or a reminder of the end of a part of the story if it's done properly with a series


----------



## Black Dragon (Mar 5, 2011)

Mdnight,

How is your prologue presented?  Is it a scene with characters and dialogue?  Or does it simply recount past events?


----------



## Ravana (Mar 5, 2011)

Ophiucha said:


> Prologues that have any useful information in them are called "Chapter One".


 
Hee hee. While I don't agree completely, I'd certainly say that in general one should at least put all the _necessary_ information in the main text… and that not doing so is a failure in writing. 

A prologue as "Chapter Zero"–a vignette displaying some action that becomes background for the main text–can work, and I often see it used effectively… though, as mentioned, if you _call_ it "Prologue," there's a good chance the reader will skip it. (I can actually cite one example that began with "Chapter Two"… and another from the same author that, while it wasn't labeled as such, began with what would have been chapter six if put in chronological sequence. Both were effectively "prologues," in the sense of introductory vignettes… though both were unquestionably also part of the main text.)

Another use of prologues is the opportunity to speak directly as the "author" of the work–whether the speaker is "you" or not, and probably it won't be. I play with this quite a bit; it lets me provide "asides" that aren't part of the main story, but which "shed light on" some points therein… and which can make the prologue entertaining in its own right. One exceptional use of this device I've seen is in Steven Brust's "Viscount of Adrilankha" trilogy (one of his Dumas pastiches)–where the books are treated as the work of a (fictional) author, who provides his own "prefaces" to each (a practice he considers objectionable, by the way… for that matter, he also objects to his work being broken up into three volumes…), as well as a "conclusion" in the final volume; where the first book in the series also includes a preface from the (fictional) "publisher" of the trilogy; and where other (fictional) "scholars" in the same world provide "afterwords," the one in the last book being a disquisition on "how to write like" both the fictional author and his "translator" (that is to say, Steven Brust). (In another book, which preceded this trilogy, the same fictional author and Brust interview each other in an afterword!) So I wouldn't say that "external" text is useless or misplaced: it has its uses. It's just easy to use it incorrectly… say, as an excuse for sloppiness in writing your main text.

Midnight: I have to disagree with you. Think of all the trilogies, series, etc. you've read: how many of them included prologues in each successive book? Most of the ones I'm familiar with don't recap information _at all_… and if they do, it's because a character has occasion (and reason) to sit down and go over past events in his mind, or hash them out with someone else. Assuming that your readers _require_ prologues is tantamount to assuming they're idiots… if nothing else, if they can't remember what went before, they can always go reread the last book, right?


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 6, 2011)

Black Dragon - It's presented as a recount... with characters and dialogue... However it would have been out of place as chapter one of the book since the events are historical to the rest of the story by hundreds of years. I tried it as the first chapter a few years ago, but it being there confused everyone that read it. So I decided it would be best to put it as the prologue and it works wonderfully. As for the other 4 in the series, I'm not sure if they will have a prologue yet. It will really depend on how I lay out the story itself on whether or not the other four volumes will need one or not.

Ravana - Just about every fantasy series I've ever read has had a prologue and epilogue. Whether they are bits of info from the previous and forthcoming volumes varies by author. But I have yet to read a fantasy saga that didn't include one or both in every volume. But again as stated before, it really depends on how the story is laid out. I personally enjoy the books with prologues and epilogues and to me they are a must. 

And I do agree that most can go back and re-read what happened in the previous book.. IF they own it. If they checked it out from a library or something that would make it a little more difficult. But you do have a point in that it isn't needed in ALL cases, but in others it is. If I go with the prologue for all the books in my saga... It won't be a typical one, it would be a history lesson on the area that particular book takes place. The prologue I have written for this first in the saga is different then a simple history lesson, but I deemed it necessary for the integrity and further enjoyment of the entire story.. All five parts of said story


----------



## Kelise (Mar 6, 2011)

Most fantasy books I've read have a prologue, but... not really ever as a recount. It would be a very singular book - say, by Rothfuss - that I would trust them to do such a thing. 

I can't remember which author it was who said it, whether it was Abercrombie or Rothfuss, but one said that if you write well enough, readers won't realise it's a recount or dumping information on the reader. So... well, if it's written well enough so you don't notice what the author is doing, then I think it's just more words to enjoy.
However, if there's a need to recount as if it's a... well, a Baby-sitters Club book - because that's the only series that comes to mind that does such a thing - then... well. I would consider a rewrite.

I'm sure you've written it well enough, as you stated so many times  You've probably made it work, and well done!


Back on the topic though, personally, I enjoy prologues.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 6, 2011)

If I thought I wrote it well enough I wouldn't have rewritten it so many times LOL! That seems to be the problem, everyone who reads says it says it's good... I look at it and say "nu" x.x


----------



## Ravana (Mar 6, 2011)

Mdnight Falling said:


> Ravana - Just about every fantasy series I've ever read has had a prologue and epilogue.



I'd have to look to be sure about Moorcock's series (Elric, Hawkmoon, Corum, etc.), but I don't recall those in any of them. Leiber's Fafhrd and Gray Mouser series didn't use them… though since most of those were written as short stories, they wouldn't have been appropriate. Howard's Conan and Solomon Kane books don't use them (for reasons similar to Leiber's, if no other); I have no idea if they appeared in works "completed" by others. Peake's Gormenghast trilogy doesn't use them. While Brust uses them as literary devices in one set of his books, they don't appear in the much longer Taltos series, apart from the most recent (where there is an afterword of "deleted scenes," where again he's playing with a convention, not including "additional" material). Cook's Black Company series doesn't have them; the only book of his I recall which does have one–and that was a stand-alone, not part of a series–employs an opening vignette, as well as what functions as an epilogue (not sure what he labels it). I don't remember such material in Donaldson's Thomas Covenant series, though I have no intention of locating them once more to verify this. Kurtz's first Deryni trilogy doesn't use them; I haven't read the rest of that series. Karl Edward Wagner's Kane books don't use them as connecting devices, though some include opening vignettes. Roger Zelazny doesn't use prologues in his two five-volume Amber series–though nearly every one of those books does include a point at which the protagonist mentally recaps previous action. I'd have to check to see if any of his other fantasy works included vignette openings; in any event, none of his series use opening synopses, and none have epilogues. Ranging into "science fantasy," Marion Zimmer Bradley's lengthy Darkover series never employs these, nor does McCaffrey's Dragonrider series; I'd have to double-check on C. J. Cherryh's Morgaine series, but I'm pretty sure she doesn't use them.

In fact, I was having trouble remembering a fantasy series that _did_ use prologues–until I thought to double-check _LoTR_. Much to my surprise, Tolkien does in fact give synopses at the beginning of each book… "surprise," because I absolutely do not remember ever reading these. On the other hand, it's entirely possible I never _did_ read them; I certainly haven't looked at them in decades, as I hardly needed to. Tolkien does include additional material at the end of _Return of the King_, but it's entirely background, and as such is appropriately placed; there's no "epilogue" _per se_ either there or in _the Hobbit_. Whether or not any section of the _Silmarillion_ is labeled as either prologue or epilogue is pretty much irrelevant, as the entire book is "background" material… not to mention having been assembled from a variety of independent pieces, none of which was ever intended for publication.

I honestly can't remember one way or the other about Eddings' Belgariad or Saberhagen's Swords series; I'm too lazy right now to dig those out. I don't know if Brooks used them (and frankly couldn't care less… since I never read more than the first book, this may account for why recollection fails me here). I don't remember them in Piers Anthony's books, but am fairly certain at least that they didn't include epilogues. I'm pretty sure both are absent in LeGuin's Earthsea books, though it's been too long for me to be sure. Same with the Narnia series. Mercedes Lackey's Herald Mage series left insufficient impressions on my mind for me to even speculate as to whether these included such sections. Perhaps others can help with these.

Still, I think it's safe to say that my experience is far from being "just about every" series I've read. There are other fantasy series I know I've read, but am having difficulty calling to mind even authors or titles, so I can hardly address whether or not these use plot summaries or other such devices. In fact, were it not for the example of Tolkien, one might even go so far as to postulate whether the "need" for such is directly proportional to how memorable the books themselves _aren't_.…


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 7, 2011)

Ravana - Most of the series you've named I've never even heard of LOL. I've read all of one of the LotR books and that was the fellowship of the ring and it does have an almost 50 page recap of the hobbit in it...  I've only read one Terry Brooks book.. the Black Unicorn but it was AGES ago I don't remember if it had one or not... Salvatore uses "Preludes" in EVERY Legend of Drizzt book including the Clerics series...Robert Jordan used them in the wheel of time series....Tamora Pierce used them in her Tortall books.. I dunno about the Magic Circle books I never read those... There's more I'm just tired and lazy to go looking on my book cases for them LOL.. I will look into the ones you mentioned though cause I always like reading new stuff >^.^< I can't speak for anyone else on this topic really.. I just prefer to use Prologues... I'm nto sure if I'll use them in the rest of the series I just feel in book one it's mandatory


----------



## Donny Bruso (Mar 7, 2011)

@ravana Eddings put a prologue on every volume of the Belgariad and Malloreon, and an epilogue at the end of the Malloreon. He also put a prologue on every volume of the the Elenium and Tamuli, and both prologues and epilogues on Belgarath the sorcerer and Polgara the Sorceress. 

Eddings, while I find his writing to be perfectly acceptable, is a classing example of how to misuse a prologue. Ever single one I've mentioned here, which is every work of his I've read, includes the prologue as an information dump. Every one consists of events that happened hundreds if not thousands of years earlier, and is not totally relevant to the story. They are dry, boring, and I'd be surprised if more than one person in twenty actually read them. 

My opinion is that if you are going to use a prologue on your story, make sure that it is relevant to the story. Most history your readers need to know can be salted in with a few lines here and there. Or have someone tell the story to a kid, or have the kid learn it in school. There are better ways to dump information on your readers than a fifty page prologue that most of them will skip. I've never read Tolkien's prologues, because a lot of the time I can barely stand his prose, never mind his information dumps.

Opening vignettes, as Ravana mentioned earlier, is a bit different. My opinion is that this can be used to show an event previously in the life of one of your main characters. How they were picked to go on the mission that horribly scarred them, or how they lost their arm, or when their daughter the child of prophecy was born. These are still your main characters, so the reader will care and probably read the prologue. If you wax on about things that happened thousands of years ago... chances are they will skip to chapter one and read the real story.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 7, 2011)

Donny Bruso said:


> @ravana Eddings put a prologue on every volume of the Belgariad and Malloreon, and an epilogue at the end of the Malloreon. He also put a prologue on every volume of the the Elenium and Tamuli, and both prologues and epilogues on Belgarath the sorcerer and Polgara the Sorceress.
> 
> Eddings, while I find his writing to be perfectly acceptable, is a classing example of how to misuse a prologue. Ever single one I've mentioned here, which is every work of his I've read, includes the prologue as an information dump. Every one consists of events that happened hundreds if not thousands of years earlier, and is not totally relevant to the story. They are dry, boring, and I'd be surprised if more than one person in twenty actually read them.
> 
> ...


 
Oh see I don't do boring >.< My prologue may have taken place hundreds of years before the rest of the series.. BUT it's like a story in itself  Out of the whole manuscript.. my prologue is the one thing I refuse to change. It's the only part of the book I'm actually happy with >.<


----------



## Amanita (Mar 7, 2011)

> It's the only part of the book I'm actually happy with


Why don't you write a book about the historical events happening then, if this is the case? 

Personally, I probably wouldn't be too happy too read a large amount of pages, or any amount of pages by the way, that describe an event which has little to do with the actual story and the characters I come to care for.
This might be possible if the event in question will actually be crucial for the people in the actual story, but even than I'd prefer to get the information another way within the actual story. Then I can see the characters react to it right away and know what it means to them. 
I also don't really like prologues that give cultural or any other kind of background information? Who actually read and enjoyed "Concerning Hobbits" in LotR? I only did because I was a good girl, taught not to skip parts of books. And the story could have worked without it perfectly well, there weren't that many actual differences between Hobbit behavior and human behavior after all. 

The only situation where I think a prologue might be really helpful is when there's been some important event in the main character's past which should be described in detail but isn't close enough to the start of the acutal plot. 
If, to take a cliched example, the Dark Lord's troups killed the hero's parents in front of his eyes when he was five and he lived a relativly eventless life with his grandmother after that till he discovers that he can fight the Dark Lord when he's sixteen, it might be helpful to actually describe what has happend back than.

Something I really dislike are stories, where the reader finds out about something important in the prologue and the main character later stumbles around cluelessly and makes plenty of mistakes because he doesn't know that bit of information/doesn't understand the signs the reader sees. This is really frustrating and would be much more interesting if I could find out about it along with the protagonist.

Even though I have to admit, that I also feel tempted to add a prologue "Concerning Elonians" at the beginning of my story and describe in detail how glorious their history has been and how deeply they have fallen and how proud they still are despite of it...


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 7, 2011)

I agree with you wholeheartedly there Amanita.. I hate things like that.. and OMG I DID skip the Hobbit crap in the fellowship of the ring LMMFAO! It was boring x.x I don't do boring x.x! The prologue of my story is more like a short story in itself.. I felt it essential because without it the reader would be lost as to why events are taking place as they are. So I deemed my prologue "The Year of Exodus" to be a vital part of the story.. just not close enough to what is going on in the actual "now" events of it to be part of the novel itself as anything other the prologue  did that make sense LOL


----------



## Kelise (Mar 7, 2011)

I went out to dinner with the local writer's centre last night, and asked one of the authors there what he thought of prologues (as he uses them) and how long he thought they should be.

'No longer than five pages. Ten, if you're interesting.'

I asked then, 'but what if you have a lot more information than that?'

"Learn eloquence. Or learn how to weave the information in the first section, up to the first transition point. Large chunks of information will be skipped."


So... what do we think about that? Ten pages at the most? Can we think of authors who've gone beyond that? I've checked all my fantasy books annnd haven't found one yet, though I'm sure there's a few/many who go beyond that 'rule'.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 7, 2011)

Mdnight Falling said:


> Ravana - Most of the series you've named I've never even heard of LOL.



Uhm… the only ones I mentioned that might qualify as "obscure" are the Wagner series (which deserve to be better known than they are), and possibly the Saberhagen. The rest I chose precisely because they constitute a "who's who" of fantasy writing–which is why in most cases I didn't even give the complete author name: I figured the people here would recognize most of them instantly. In case I was wrong, here they are again in bullet points, for your (and everyone's) convenience:

- J.R.R. Tolkien: _the Hobbit_, _Lord of the Rings_, _the Silmarillion_ ("completed" posthumously by son Christopher)
- Michael Moorcock: Elric, Hawkmoon, Corum, ErekosÃ©, von Bek and other "Eternal Champion" series
- Robert E. Howard: Conan, Solomon Kane
- Fritz Leiber: Fafhrd and Gray Mouser series (aka "Swords" series, as the titles of all but the last begin with that word… and, in a probably intentional irony, the final book ends with it)
- Mervyn Peake: _Gormenghast_ trilogy (the third, however, belonging properly to science fantasy, if not outright science fiction)
- Steven Brust: _Taltos_ series (currently twelve books, projected to go out to nineteen); _Phoenix Guard_, _Five Hundred Years After_, and "Viscount of Adrilankha" trilogy
- Glen Cook: _Black Company_ series; _Tower of Fear_ (the stand-alone mentioned); also Dread Empires and Instrumentalities of the Night series (both of which I have yet to read)
- Stephen R. Donaldson: _Chronicles of Thomas Covenant the Unbeliever_ (two trilogies, plus another series in progress)
- Katherine Kurtz: _Deryni_ series (now at fifteen books, not counting two purely background ones)
- Karl Edward Wagner: Kane series
- Roger Zelazny: _Chronicles of Amber_ (two five-volume series); _Changeling_ and _Madwand_; _Dilvish the Damned_ and _the Changing Land_
- David Eddings: _Belgariad_ and _Malloreon_ (both five-book series, of which I've only read the first; some connected books as well)
- Fred Saberhagen: the "_Complete_" [sic] _Book of Swords_ (trilogy), plus six more which I have not read
- Terry Brooks: the _Sha-Na-N_–er, that is, _Shannara_ series–should not be taken as an example of good writing, so what he does with it is irrelevant; mentioned only because so many people _are_ familiar with it…
- Piers Anthony: _Xanth_, the quintessential example of the "extended trilogy"–34 books and counting; I've only read the first six, and it's been ages
- Ursula K. LeGuin: _Earthsea_ series (five novels and a story collection) 
- C. S. Lewis: _Chronicles of Narnia_ 
- Mercedes Lackey: _the Last Herald-Mage_ trilogy (the only works of hers I've read)

Science Fantasy:
- Marion Zimmer Bradley: _Darkover_ series–eighteen novels and a short story collection by Bradley… plus eleven collaborative short story collections, nine published and three forthcoming (posthumous) novels, making this probably the most extensive collaborative world in existence (other than perhaps ones drawing on commercial products, e.g. the D&D worlds)
- Anne McCaffrey: _Dragonriders of Pern_ (no fewer than fifteen books, even if you don't count the ones written or co-written by her son)
- C. J. Cherryh: Morgaine series (originally three books; a fourth was later added)

To which I would add:
- Gene Wolfe: _Book of the New Sun_ (science fantasy tetralogy plus one-book sequel… plus another tetralogy and a trilogy; I've only read the first five)
- Samuel R. Delany: _Neveryon_ books (four titles, some of which repeat material under other titles)

Thanks for the info on the Eddings books, Donny. I went and checked a couple others my recollection was shaky on: Saberhagen employs a mythopoeic prologue about the creation of his Swords, and a _very_ brief mythopoeic epilogue at the end of the trilogy. LeGuin does not use either in any of her books. Lackey has a brief epilogue at the conclusion of the trilogy, plus an appendix containing a handful of songs. Wolfe and Delany, which I initially left out because I wanted to double-check them, do not use prologues in any of the works I've read. Wolfe has brief (we're talking 2-3 page) appendixes in the first three books, giving a few cultural details. Delany has _massive_ epilogues/appendixes in most of the Neveryon books, but they are far from being even "background" material; they're closer to essays on philosophy, writing, or both, which use the books for _their_ background.

All of these authors have written far more than I've mentioned; I'm only commenting on works relevant to the topic (series) and even then only ones I'm sufficiently familiar with to have at least some recollection of (or can easily check, now that I've changed the lightbulb in the basement…). Out of all of the above, only Brust, Cook and Lackey have careers that began as recently as the 1980s; the first two of these are probably the two best fantasy writers going right now. Out of all the "major" fantasy authors I've seen (based on bookstore shelf space, which admittedly may not be the best measure), the only one I'm not familiar with is Robert Jordan–who, for various reasons, I have no intention of becoming familiar with any time soon. (If nothing else, I have enough unread books to keep me a while, and enough other books I want to read but haven't bought yet to discourage me from starting yet another series.  ) As for books based on RPGs, computer games, etc.: yes, they "count" in the sense that they _are_ fantasy, and _have_ been published (and gods know they sell enough)… but you're not likely to win too many arguments by relying on those for evidence–not even when it's R. A. Salvatore who's writing them. I guess it's just hard to take seriously books based on a game that was based on many of the works I cited above.…

That having been said: I still stand by my initial response, which is that prologues are appropriate if you have something to say in them. Personally, I would _not_ use them as recaps… not unless my publisher required me to add one in light of a foregoing work having been published too far in the past. Any background information I wanted to make available outside of the main text I'd put in appendices. As opening vignettes–or closing ones, for epilogues–they're okay, as long as you have a good reason to distinguish them in that fashion from the main text… and keep in mind the other point, that many readers won't read them if you do label them that way.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 7, 2011)

starconstant said:


> 'No longer than five pages. Ten, if you're interesting.' …
> 
> "Learn eloquence. Or learn how to weave the information in the first section, up to the first transition point. Large chunks of information will be skipped."



I never apply numerical rules–anything you write should be as long as it needs to be, and no longer. 

The second part of his advice, on the other hand, is excellent.


----------



## Donny Bruso (Mar 7, 2011)

@Ravana: No problem. My computer is conveniently right next to my bookshelf, so quick little research tangents like that are pretty easy.

I unfortunately am ashamed to say I haven't read all or even most of the books in your 'classics' list.  Though The Black Company is next on my list as soon as I finish Heroes.


----------



## Ravana (Mar 7, 2011)

Donny Bruso said:


> @Ravana: No problem. My computer is conveniently right next to my bookshelf, so quick little research tangents like that are pretty easy.



Hee hee. My computer is next to (okay, surrounded by) _one_ of my sets of bookshelves. Which is almost exclusively reference material. (And, conversely, is far from being all of my reference material.…) Unfortunately, the fiction books are either on a different set of shelves, or stacked in piles of things I intended to look at–and can, as a result, rarely locate. 



> I unfortunately am ashamed to say I haven't read all or even most of the books in your 'classics' list.  Though The Black Company is next on my list as soon as I finish Heroes.



You'll love them. Glad I could be of assistance in providing a "reference list," as far as the rest are concerned.


----------



## Mdnight Rising (Mar 7, 2011)

I personally use a short prologue  in my books if anything to set the scene for the world and the immediate  happenings  in the story.. Everybook i have read for the most part has had a prologue it would just be  wierd for it not to be there. Just like an  epilogue  concludes a story  the prologue is there to open the story itself  in my opinion.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 7, 2011)

I know saberhagen I've read all his stuff and tolkein.. Everyone knows him.. I just haven't read anything other then the Fellowship of the Ring by him.. Most of the others if they are ones I have heard of I haven't read since I was very young.. back in the late 80's or early 90's.. the newer ones I haven't heard of at all LMAO. But I'm always up to look into new things.. well new for me  I MAY... it's a BIG may too..but I may just attach "Year of exodus" not as a prologue.. but as a short story companion to the beginning of my book. For one there's no way I can make it shorter then it's 32 pages.. I've tried it doesn't happen >.< for two, it's vital since without it the reader would get lost very very quickly without it.. Mdnight Rising has read that portion of my book he can tell you it's important LMAO! And no it isn't like the reader knows things the chars don't by reading it. The short story is a common "legend" of the people Xosha, so they've told the story generation to generation. I only have to put it in because the reader would really be lost without it... I just don't know how to present it as anything except a prologue or a prelude  Any suggestions? 

and Ravana, while I do read fantasy novels.. They aren't all I read. I have a mini library of all kinds of works I read... I just love to write fantasy. I'm sorry my knowledge of all things fantasy isn't as vast as everyone elses >.< I wish it were but for a long time I read mainly Ayn Rand , shakespeare, and Dickens... and nothing else.. I didn't start reading fantasy stuff as a norm until about 1997 when I was 16. Before then I had to read what my schools and my grandparents made me read. when I had time I did read Marion Zimmer Bradley and the like.. that may be backward somewhere it's been a LONG time since I've read anything by him... and things like the Last Unicorn by Peter S. Beagle and the Never Ending Story I forget the author's last name on that one...

I have been suggested a good book to read recently though and just got a copy of it.. It's called Hyperion by Dan Simmons.. Anyone ever read it?


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 7, 2011)

Mdnight Rising said:


> I personally use a short prologue  in my books if anything to set the scene for the world and the immediate  happenings  in the story.. Everybook i have read for the most part has had a prologue it would just be  wierd for it not to be there. Just like an  epilogue  concludes a story  the prologue is there to open the story itself  in my opinion.


 
That's my understanding of Prologue and Eplilogue too Bry... But really if it's supposed to be short... Should the Exodus just be chapter one and chapter two take place hundreds of years later? What the hell do I do with it >.<


----------



## Mdnight Rising (Mar 7, 2011)

you might try that i have read books where chapter one took place  in one year  then skipped forward  and back again with each new chapter .. most of the forgotten realms  books  are famous for it


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 7, 2011)

Mdnight Rising said:


> you might try that i have read books where chapter one took place  in one year  then skipped forward  and back again with each new chapter .. most of the forgotten realms  books  are famous for it


 
It would just be that ONE chapter that would be far back.. the rest are all "present day"


----------



## Mdnight Rising (Mar 7, 2011)

I think of all people you can  make that work ..........


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 7, 2011)

We shall have to see... If I can find that damn prog to convert the files into something I can read.. I'll post it in the showcase and see if the other members can help me decide what to call it LOL


----------



## Mdnight Rising (Mar 7, 2011)

lol  alright sounds good


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 9, 2011)

Black Dragon said:


> Prologues are very popular in the fantasy genre.  But are they actually helpful?
> 
> Orson Scott Card once said the following:
> 
> ...


I wouldn't clean my posterior with anything Card has commited to dead trees, but that's just a personal opinion.

I've always written prologues (numerous abandoned novels festering in my attic attest to that). They're a useful tool, I feel. My current novel (possibly a publishable one) begins with a rather short prologue, but the ideas it contains are a set-up for what comes later. I consider a prologue as a taster, so the reader knows exactly what they're in for. The trick, I've found, is to write just enough to intrigue, but not enough to render what follows redundant.

So, in short, yes: I think prologues are helpful. Indeed, they can be a boon to a writer if used correctly.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 9, 2011)

Ravana said:


> - J.R.R. Tolkien: _the Hobbit_, _Lord of the Rings_, _the Silmarillion_ ("completed" posthumously by son Christopher)
> - Michael Moorcock: Elric, Hawkmoon, Corum, ErekosÃ©, von Bek and other "Eternal Champion" series
> - Robert E. Howard: Conan, Solomon Kane
> - Fritz Leiber: Fafhrd and Gray Mouser series (aka "Swords" series, as the titles of all but the last begin with that word… and, in a probably intentional irony, the final book ends with it)
> ...


Drop the Narnia Chronicles, Brooks and Piers Anthony, and it's a rather good introductory list. And kudos for having Peake, Kurtz and Moorcock there - too few fantasy 'fans' have ever read them.


----------



## Mdnight Rising (Mar 9, 2011)

:::chuckles:: that about sums it up


----------



## TheHawk (Mar 14, 2011)

A mentor of mine once told me that a prologue is usually all about the back-story -forget back-story - the reader wants to know what is happening now, not what happened yesterday.

Take or leave as you desire.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 14, 2011)

Honestly, that is my line for actually reading a prologue. If it is obvious to me that this is backstory - either worldbuilding dump or "this is what happened to the character as a baby" - I am going to skip it. If it is the former, I would rather learn about your world through the immersion, not the bullet points. If it is the latter, I can only assume it was not important otherwise it would have been Chapter One. It's yet to fail me. I can only think of a handful of books that have a "recap" prologue, but I don't really consider those to _be_ prologues. They are recaps. Effectively, "Last Week on _Supernatural_" clip show sorts of deals. A prologue, for how little I value it, still should only relate to the book in hand, not some previous one.


----------



## Amanita (Mar 14, 2011)

> I can only assume it was not important otherwise it would have been Chapter One.


So, would you rather have the "baby time-event" as chapter one and than a jump to the time where the hero is old enough for the rest of the story to start in chapter two? And what does  make that different from a prologue besides the naming? Or do you think that there shouldn't be any important things happening to the character before the story starts? 

I'm sorry if my questions sound rude but as I've written somewhere in this thread I think that this is one of the situations where a prologue can be useful and I'd like to know why you disagree.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 14, 2011)

While I personally think the most important thing in a character's life should be what you are writing the story about, there are of course going to be many characters with important events in their past. I question the need to include it right off the bat, of course, but if it is essential, then it should be in Chapter One. Perhaps the best example of this is "The Boy Who Lived", the first chapter of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone.

The simple fact of the matter is that most people don't read prologues. Many writers do not read prologues, many readers do not read prologues, and if you are including pivotal information in your prologue, you have to accept that most of your audience will not get it until you mention it again. And, frankly, you're going to. You won't say "Corey was raped when she was a little girl," and never bring it up again. Most of the time, these first chapters/prologues should only be used if the consequences of his past are immediate. Harry Potter, going back to that example, opens up living with his abusive aunt and uncle. The first chapter established that he is an orphan, a wizard, and that the Dursleys hate magic. Mostly, though, these sorts of backstories only become relevant once a character is forced to tell others about it for one reason or another. We are meant to learn about it when the others do. He might have a secret, he might be a loner, he might have scars - but we don't need to know why before we even know what he's like today. Indeed, it often works better if we don't


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 14, 2011)

But, of course, a prologue doesn't have to include any backstory at all. Some authors take a scene from the middle of the book and use it in altered form to grab the reader from the get-go. Personally, I use it to foreshadow an event (as opposed to hitting the imaginary reader over the head with things they'll find out anyway).


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 14, 2011)

Foreshadowing is fine, but again, why is it in the prologue and not the first chapter? I have just yet to see a convincing argument for using a prologue over writing these things in chapter one.

One use for a prologue, one that makes sense to me, is a story that uses a false forward. Books that are 'original sources': diaries, letters, etc., where someone has "collected" the resources. That works pretty well. Maybe, _maybe_ a half-framing device, sort of a completely unrelated scene that sets the whole thing up, but generally without any of the (major, at least) characters. Jurassic Park had the bit in Cuba, for a sci-fi example. (This wasn't exactly in the first movie, but a rather similar scene opened up the second film, where a little rich girl gets attacked by some Compsognathus.)


----------



## Philip Overby (Mar 15, 2011)

For me, I will use prologues until the end of time.  Why?  Because I like them.  I don't think they are useless unless written by a bad writer who doesn't know how to use them.  And a lot of bad writers use them.  So maybe that's why they have a polarizing reputation because too many bad writers use them for info dumping or for something that has nothing to do with the main story.

Like anything in writing, if you can pull off a good prologue, then use it.  If you can't, then don't.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 15, 2011)

Ophiucha said:


> Foreshadowing is fine, but again, why is it in the prologue and not the first chapter?


The first chapter introduces the protagonist, whereas the prologue deals with the activities of a character who doesn't appear until a third of the way into the book, yet whose activities directly affect what happens in Chapter One. It wouldn't work any other way.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 15, 2011)

At Dusk I Reign said:


> The first chapter introduces the protagonist, whereas the prologue deals with the activities of a character who doesn't appear until a third of the way into the book, yet whose activities directly affect what happens in Chapter One. It wouldn't work any other way.


 
I'll take it (as I did mention a rather similar situation in my previous post), but I will say that very, _very_ few books could use this effectively. I would say that for every book that should use a prologue, no less than a hundred shouldn't.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 16, 2011)

Ophiucha said:


> ...but I will say that very, _very_ few books could use this effectively.


Authors who don't know how to use prologues effectively (treating them as infodumps as opposed to a means of telling the story) abound; then again, if they're having problems with prologues their chapters probably won't be up to much either. It's just another method of structuring a novel. Like chapters. Terry Pratchett's become a bestselling author and he doesn't even bother with chapters. Ultimately, I hope, if the writing is compelling enough the reader won't really care about the scaffolding the words are hung on.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 16, 2011)

I think prologues are something of an exclusive issue. There _is_ a reason they have a bad reputation, and more importantly, a reason that so many people do not read them. If I have no bigger reason to forgo the prologue, it is that simple fact. Most people don't read them. Certainly, at least, not on their first read through. And while there are prologues that are interesting, and act well with the rest of the story, I have yet to find an example of a prologue that was necessary, where not reading the prologue actually affected my ability to read the book.


----------



## Amanita (Mar 16, 2011)

> Most people don't read them.


Really not? I always read the prologue of a new book I've bought, because I want to know everything the author has to tell us. But maybe I'm just strange, I even read glossaries that have things like "_Alice_, a woman who suffered greatly" in them.  
Maybe I should really stop believing that other people read a book like I do.

I have to admit that the first chapter of the first Harry Potter-book doesn't really add that much to the story. And your right that it's really hard to think of a story where the prologue is absolutely necessary for the story. 
Personally, I usually don't mind if they're there though because I like extra information about every world I like. 
I only dislike prologues that give absolutely boring information, prologues that give away too much and kill suspense while the protagonist stumbles around trying to find out what's going on (such as in Harry Potter 6) and prologues that are totally obscure and don't seem to be related to the story at all. I've seen that in a German fantasy series no one here would because it's never been translated. There I really tend to skim over the prologues very quickly.


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 16, 2011)

I've seen a few polls on it in literary magazines, and it seems the case is - more often than not - people skip them. The one I remember had four options, "Always read the prologue," "Skim the prologue," "Read it once and never again," and "Never read the prologue." I can't recall the exact numbers, 'always' had the lowest mark and 'read it once' had the highest. I can't recall if 'skim' or 'never' was higher, I think they were pretty close. Other polls I've seen on writing sites tend to just have Yes/No, and no is almost always the more popular choice.


----------



## At Dusk I Reign (Mar 16, 2011)

Ophiucha said:


> There _is_ a reason they have a bad reputation.


I don't doubt it. It's probably a reason shared amongst those who don't know what they're for or how to use them. Prologues are simply a mechanism in the engine. If readers or writers don't understand that mechanism then there's no reason to follow them on their travels.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 17, 2011)

I know I always read the prologue.. I can usually tell if I'll like a book by the prologue. Don't get me wrong, even if the prologue sucks, I'll give the rest of the benefit of the doubt and read it cover to cover.. But in my experience, I've just about never liked a novel whose prologue didn't catch my interest first


----------



## Ophiucha (Mar 17, 2011)

That would generally be called the 'hook', and whether it is a prologue or chapter one, whatever the first bit of your book is, it should be able to capture the interest of the reader.


----------



## Kelise (Mar 17, 2011)

Sometimes I find the prologue to be the worst part of the book. Or I think back, and wonder why it was in there at all. The Tide Lords by Jennifer Fallon, for example. I adore her as an author, I adore her books, and that's one of my favourite series... yet the prologue... well. I don't have any writing experience compared to her five series, but I would personally prefer it without it.


----------



## Mdnight Falling (Mar 18, 2011)

I think there's been like one book I could have lived without the prologue... but I can't remember the name of it LOL.Which ultimaetly means I probably didn't like the book either >.< The only time I don't like a prologue.. Even if it makes me interested in the book.. is when it confuses me... Anyone else ever have that happen? Like the prologue had not a thing to do with the rest of the book and that was about the only interesting thing in the entire work >.<


----------



## Wormtongue (Dec 14, 2011)

And back from the dead thread graveyard...

I didn't originally intend to have a prologue.  But the beginning of the story takes place years before the main events and I decided to separate the beginning into a prologue.  It just didn't feel right having a seven year gap between the first two chapters.


----------



## zizban (Dec 14, 2011)

Sometim es I use a prologue, sometimes I don't. All depends on the needs of the story.


----------



## Erica (Dec 15, 2011)

It's never occurred to me to skip a prologue, unless it were dull as dirt (in which case, I'd be likely to assume the rest of the book will be too and give the whole thing a miss). I assume it's there for a reason. If I find myself skipping part of a book, I'll probably lose interest in it entirely (long battle scenes with unnecessary detail may be the exception here).

I would suggest that they be short and sweet though and not include things that can be integrated into the story later. As a reader, I like there to be a certain element of mystery in a book that hooks me in and keeps me reading into the wee hours so that I can figure out why things are happening the way they are. But if a writer assumes too much or leaves out too much, they run the risk of confusing some readers to the point of annoyance.

I have a prologue in my nip, and I'm still trying to decide if its necessary or not. I enjoyed writing it and I think it establishes something of the dilemma one of my pov characters is in. It's centered around a dialog. Cutting bits of back story that were fun to write but too much information is always painful.


----------



## Jess A (Dec 15, 2011)

I enjoy using prologues to 'set the scene' or 'hook' the reader in.

However, their necessity definitely depends on the story and the writer.


----------



## James Chandler (Dec 16, 2011)

I was happy to see this thread, and happier to see it revived a bit.  I recently read a great post about using prologues that really made me think. My current WIP has a prologue I've worked pretty hard on. The main reason I labeled it a prologue, though, was because it sets the stage from the perspective of three non-POV characters. I don't intend to use any of those POV's again, so it made sense to label it a prologue rather than Chapter 1.  At the same time, all the information will have to be revealed when the main POV characters learn it, so I'm not sure I really need it.


----------



## sashamerideth (Dec 17, 2011)

This is just me but I just don't like prologues, and don't see any benefit. I am character driven, and the things put in prologues just get skipped or they attach me to a character that isn't relevant to the story. The events can always be related to the reader later.

Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 17, 2011)

sashamerideth said:


> This is just me but I just don't like prologues, and don't see any benefit. I am character driven, and the things put in prologues just get skipped or they attach me to a character that isn't relevant to the story. The events can always be related to the reader later.
> 
> Sent from my Blade using Forum Runner



I'm with you. I've put books back on the shelf in the story on more than one occasion because it had a prologue, and I don't like them. I like the book to start where the story starts, and a "pro" "logue" seems to me to be at least an indicator that the author realizes very well where the story starts but has decided to subject us to some other material for a number of pages before getting to it


----------



## zizban (Dec 17, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> I'm with you. I've put books back on the shelf in the story on more than one occasion because it had a prologue, and I don't like them. I like the book to start where the story starts, and a "pro" "logue" seems to me to be at least an indicator that the author realizes very well where the story starts but has decided to subject us to some other material for a number of pages before getting to it



Harsh crowd!

Prologue are like any other literary device: it's a tool and it has it's uses.


----------



## Wormtongue (Dec 17, 2011)

The anti-prologue bias puzzles me.  But then again, so does the anti-series bias.

I don't think every book needs a prologue.  Some do.  Not every book should be a series.  Some should.

I take each on it's merits.


----------



## Telcontar (Dec 17, 2011)

I agree that most prologues are not 'necessary' to the story. Hopefully it does _add_ to the story somehow. I'm pondering this fairly closely because I also have a story for which I plan to include a prologue. The real question is this: Does it ADD to the story? Does reading the prologue enhance the rest of the story for the reader?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 17, 2011)

If a prologue is entertaining and well-written, then the fact that it has the word "Prologue" before it should be meaningless.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 18, 2011)

If the use of the term "prologue" is meaningless in any given instance, then it may as well be called Chapter 1.

Many prologues I've come across could have been eliminated and the work thereby improved, a few of them were well done and may just as well have been the first chapter.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 18, 2011)

Wormtongue said:


> I don't think every book needs a prologue.  Some do.  Not every book should be a series.  Some should.



I'm not sure I've come across a book that _needs_ a prologue. Some manage to make a prologue work, but I can't think of any where I was left thinking the book wouldn't have worked with the prologue.


----------



## Merc (Dec 18, 2011)

I've found problems both reading and writing prologues.  The first stint where I really set out to write everything that was on my mind, and the story that I've now given life to(a meager unpaid life, but hey, they just haven't found a home yet) began in what is now book 2, and the prologue turned into a monster I became unable to control, evolving into book 1.  At first, I was like, a paragraph is all I'll need, and not vital to the reader, then I extended... and extended.   Reading prologue's I usually go  back when the book is done, out of curiosity more than anything else.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 18, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> If the use of the term "prologue" is meaningless in any given instance, then it may as well be called Chapter 1.
> 
> Many prologues I've come across could have been eliminated and the work thereby improved, a few of them were well done and may just as well have been the first chapter.



If the prologue introduces you to the world, shows you some action occurring that is not directly about the main characters but informs your understanding of what happens later, and (again) is well-written and interesting, then why is it a problem? If it's badly written, then the book probably is too. I find it hard to believe that there are any significant number of good books worth reading that have bad prologues worth skipping.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 18, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> If the prologue introduces you to the world, shows you some action occurring that is not directly about the main characters but informs your understanding of what happens later, and (again) is well-written and interesting, then why is it a problem? If it's badly written, then the book probably is too. I find it hard to believe that there are any significant number of good books worth reading that have bad prologues worth skipping.



If it really does all of those things, then I don't have a problem with it in theory. My aversion to prologues is that the ones I come tend to be unnecessary to a later understanding. The author has just basically used them to convey a lot of back story, which is poor form in my view, and not something I'm generally interested in reading. I'm more likely to go ahead and get something with a prologue if it is very short so that we get on to the main story pretty quickly, but all other things being equal, if I am considering two books I'm much more like to put the one with the prologue back on the shelf.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 18, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> If it really does all of those things, then I don't have a problem with it in theory. My aversion to prologues is that the ones I come tend to be unnecessary to a later understanding. The author has just basically used them to convey a lot of back story, which is poor form in my view, and not something I'm generally interested in reading. I'm more likely to go ahead and get something with a prologue if it is very short so that we get on to the main story pretty quickly, but all other things being equal, if I am considering two books I'm much more like to put the one with the prologue back on the shelf.



Oh, well, yeah, that makes sense. I was coming at it from the perspective of usually having books recommended to me by a trusted source (parents, wife, friends) or if it's something that a lot of people recommend and very few people denigrate (e.g. Twilight has a lot of fans, but also a lot of people despise it; versus _A Game of Thrones_ about which I had heard many good things and had never really heard anything negative, so I decided to read it a couple of years ago).

I don't usually pick books off the shelf and try to figure out if they're any good that way, but if that is what one does, then it certainly could make sense to use the presence of a prologue as a deciding factor.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 18, 2011)

Benjamin Clayborne said:


> I don't usually pick books off the shelf and try to figure out if they're any good that way, but if that is what one does, then it certainly could make sense to use the presence of a prologue as a deciding factor.



I buy a lot of books I've never heard of, from authors I've never heard of. Usually just read a page or two. I don't read the blurbs. If someone I know and share the same tastes with recommends a book to me, then a prologue wouldn't put me off. There are so many books to choose from at the store, and in addition to authors I know I like to buy from completely new writers (or new to me), so it just helps in the decision process.  I can think of some really good prologues, but they are rare. One that comes to mind is the prologue to Tigana, by Guy Gavriel Kay. If I'm remembering correctly, I really liked that one.


----------



## Havok (Dec 21, 2011)

i think prologues could be used as a quick "mood setter". Just to give a hint of the tone of the tale, or to give the reader a hint that something dark and brooding is in the making, which in it self is a mood setter


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 21, 2011)

Havok said:


> i think prologues could be used as a quick "mood setter". Just to give a hint of the tone of the tale, or to give the reader a hint that something dark and brooding is in the making, which in it self is a mood setter



True, but why not set the mood with Chapter 1 instead?


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 21, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> True, but why not set the mood with Chapter 1 instead?



Setting the stage with something that is peripheral to (but related to) the main action is a mechanism that has worked well thousands of times. I don't know why it works, but it does. I would think the burden would fall on those who don't like prologues to justify why they should never be used.


----------



## Jess A (Dec 22, 2011)

My novel's prologue outlines an event set in the past.

This may merely be my personal preference. It might seem cliche to some, but I do not care. It serves my novel.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 22, 2011)

I don't think prologues can never be used effectively. In my experience, they are ineffective more often than they are effective. If the only reason for providing one is to set a mood, I do think that is a mistake, but others are welcome to disagree


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 22, 2011)

It's not usually the only reason. It's also used to establish some backstory, or introduce us to secondary, peripheral, or villain characters so that some event or threat is lurking in the back of our minds as we read the rest of it. 



Spoiler: A Game of Thrones



_A Game of Thrones_ begins with three brothers of the Night's Watch being attacked by Others. We don't see the Others again until about three-quarters of the way through the book, although their existence is discussed before then. AGoT is actually quite remarkable in that the supernatural element is almost entirely absent from the first book, except for the Others and when the dragons show up at the end.


 I mean, I agree, if all you're doing with the prologue is setting the mood, then your prologue had better be no longer than a page or two. But I really can't say that I've come across a lot of prologues that do that.


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 22, 2011)

I believe you can look at some stellar works, such as _Game of Thrones_ or _Tigana_, which I mentioned earlier, and realize that yeah, these guys really know what they're doing. On the other hand, I hated Robert Jordan's prologues.

But for your average mid-list author, or unpublished author who is still learning the ropes and/or trying to make a go of it, I see more that doesn't work for me than does.

So I will not say NEVER use a prologue, but it has reached the point for me where seeing one in a book that I just grab off the shelf (a book I'm not already looking for; just browsing for a new purchase) really increases the odds I'll put it back. For that matter, so does the fact that the book is part of an unfinished series, though I may make a note to come back when the series is done.


----------



## Reaver (Dec 22, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> But for your average mid-list author, or unpublished author who is still learning the ropes and/or trying to make a go of it, I see more that doesn't work for me than does.
> 
> So I will not say NEVER use a prologue, but it has reached the point for me where seeing one in a book that I just grab off the shelf (a book I'm not already looking for; just browsing for a new purchase) really increases the odds I'll put it back. For that matter, so does the fact that the book is part of an unfinished series, though I may make a note to come back when the series is done.



Damn! This is helpful, but at the same time vexing.  Are you saying that instead of a prologue, one should set everything up in the first chapter?


----------



## Steerpike (Dec 22, 2011)

Reaver said:


> Damn! This is helpful, but at the same time vexing.  Are you saying that instead of a prologue, one should set everything up in the first chapter?



I guess that's the key question, isn't it. Most of the time I find that the material in the prologue either could have been chapter 1, or really could have been eliminated in terms of "set up," and the information just provided to the reader more naturally over the course of the story itself. I like the advice "start at the beginning," and to me a prologue, by definition, says you are starting somewhere other than the beginning.

Hopefully it goes without saying that this is my personal view and I also believe that each writer should follow his or her own vision of a story. If that vision includes a prologue, then so be it. But perhaps some of the criticism of prologues generally can help people avoid problems with theirs.

One thing that happens a lot in fantasy is that a writer develops a ton of backstory, history, culture, and all of the other things that come through world-building, and they take the view that the reader is damn well going to hear about it whether it is necessary or desirable for them to do so. Prologues often include that sort of material as well. In my view


----------



## Reaver (Dec 22, 2011)

Steerpike said:


> I guess that's the key question, isn't it. Most of the time I find that the material in the prologue either could have been chapter 1, or really could have been eliminated in terms of "set up," and the information just provided to the reader more naturally over the course of the story itself. I like the advice "start at the beginning," and to me a prologue, by definition, says you are starting somewhere other than the beginning.




Well said.  Now that I think about it, my prologues have been a bit long and I've found myself fretting over info to present to set up the whole thing. I think I'll just turn it into Chapter One and go from there. It'll be a lot less stressful that way.


----------



## The Blue Lotus (Dec 22, 2011)

I was always told that they are silly and should be avoided... So I took what was my pro and have been working on hammering it into a full chapter.


----------



## Jess A (Dec 22, 2011)

I kept my prologue short and to the point - so I could include the little 'past' event. There is no need to annoy the reader with 'this is my world's history'. A prologue works for my current story. However, a prologue has not always worked for other stories that I have written. It is simply a matter of 'does it serve my book'? It did, and so I used it. I have read books which have a prologue tacked onto it for no reason - and hence simply does not need to be there. 

Prologues should not be discounted - they should be used when appropriate. Much like anything.


----------



## Benjamin Clayborne (Dec 22, 2011)

Black Dragon said:


> Orson Scott Card once said the following:
> 
> "I have learned, as a book reviewer, that's it's usually best to skip the prologue entirely and begin with the story - as the author should also have done.  I have never - not once - found that by skipping the prologue I missed some information I needed in order to read the story; and when I have read the prologue first, I have never - not once - fount it interesting, helpful, or even understandable."



I wonder if Card hates appetizers and overtures too.


----------



## Lord Darkstorm (Dec 27, 2011)

> I wonder if Card hates appetizers and overtures too.


If the appetizer is thirty pounds of lard...I think I'd skip it too.  I believe the point OSC is trying to make is that the story begins at chapter 1, and everything that the reader should know should be in the story.  If you are going for a large meal, you sometimes have to wonder why you would need an appetizer.  

Prologs are not food, or music, they are prologs, and too many people feel they don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of the story, which is why they get such a bad reputation for being an info dumping ground.  Maybe the question should be why someone needs a prolog to start with.  Instead of saying "sure, just pop one in", we should ask, what is the reason for it?


----------

