# Who hates Prologues?



## Netardapope (Sep 27, 2016)

This is an issue that infuriates me to no end. Often times, on writing advice articles and the like, people say that we should avoid prologues. Now, I'll be the first to say that if a prologue adds nothing to the story, it should be cut, but the people who make these articles take it to the next level!

They'll say things along the lines of 'no one reads the prologues' or 'it's just used to pad out the story' but these seem to be opinions that almost no one holds!

I've never met a person that skips the prologue, even bad prologues, and no one I know seems to have an issue with them. So, as a lover of prologues, I was wondering if there was anyone who actually hates them here. And if not, then feel free to reply and join in my mutual frustration at modern writing advice.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 27, 2016)

As a reader I am prologue agnostic, as with all things, it depends on execution.


----------



## SaltyDog (Sep 27, 2016)

If it's a well written prologue, I'm all for it.  If it isn't, and it just adds absolutely nothing to the theme of the story except for confusion, I am not for it.  So for me it depends on how the prologue is written.


----------



## Malik (Sep 27, 2016)

Blog post on exactly this: 

Everything You Ever Wanted to Ask About Prologues but were Afraid to Know

Some prologues suck because some writers don't understand what prologues are for, and they write them anyway.

In epic fantasy, the world is a character with its own arc. It has its own reason for being in the story, it interacts with the characters, and most of all, it has to be changed at the end through the main characters’ actions. This last bit is one of the immutable and defining characteristics of epic fantasy. 

If you're wondering if your story is high fantasy or epic fantasy, this is the delineation, right here. If your characters are in a magical fantasy realm and they go out and get in rollicking adventures but don't change anything in the larger scheme of things, it's high fantasy; if their exploits literally change the world, it's epic fantasy.

In epic fantasy, _the prologue is a scene that introduces the world as a character._ It introduces the world at the outset and tells us enough about it so that we can see how much it has changed at the end. A correctly written prologue, if skipped, should give some aspect of the world the same impact in Chapter One as if you'd suddenly dropped in a character that no one had ever heard of.

High fantasy and even most SF stories don't require prologues. Some writers put them in anyway, with no understanding of what they're supposed to accomplish; I have to wonder if they just think, "Well, it has to have one, so here goes." So sometimes we get nattering backstories, or ten-page info dumps, and sometimes unrelated scenes altogether. 

Bad prologues lead to prologue hate. Write necessary prologues.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 27, 2016)

I've skipped plenty of prologues. Usually they don't contain useful information, and I get bored reading them because often they're about characters I don't know and will never enter the story again...

I mean, I should read them, but often I skip them. 

As for whether I like them or not? Good prologues, sure; bad prologues, no. I don't write prologues myself. 90% of the time you could put the information in the prologue someplace else, like in the first chapter, or just make it a first chapter. But i don't really have a problem with them. Anything can be done well.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 27, 2016)

I definitely skip prologues at times. I've also put books back on the shelves and not bought them when it came down to a choice between one that has a prologue and another that doesn't. This is because I often find I don't enjoy prologues. I know some who read them, and others who skip them, and because of the latter people often say you shouldn't put anything important in the prologue. But if you don't have anything important in there you may as well just remove it.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 27, 2016)

Malik said:


> Write necessary prologues.



Is there such a thing, strictly speaking?


----------



## Malik (Sep 27, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> Is there such a thing, strictly speaking?



In epic fantasy, absolutely. The prologue is critical. 99% of the time. Again: it's the world's introductory scene. 

Of course, there are some fantasy authors who think they're writing epic fantasy, who aren't, and write unnecessary prologues. If you're writing hack and slash sword-and-sandal, or YA or MG high fantasy, or the story where gamers end up in the game world, you can fill me in on the workings of your world and the backstory as we go; that's fine. But if you're telling me that your characters are going to tip the world on its ear and redefine life as everyone knows it, I want to know what the world was like before they start.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 27, 2016)

Malik said:


> In epic fantasy, absolutely. The prologue is critical. 99% of the time. Again: it's the world's introductory scene.
> 
> Of course, there are some fantasy authors who think they're writing epic fantasy, who aren't, and write unnecessary prologues. If you're writing hack and slash sword-and-sandal, or YA or MG high fantasy, or the story where gamers end up in the game world, you can fill me in on the workings of your world and the backstory as we go; that's fine. But if you're telling me that your characters are going to tip the world on its ear and redefine life as everyone knows it, I want to know what the world was like before they start.



All of the information about what the world was like _before_ could be provided through a variety of mechanisms within the narrative proper, so I don't view it as strictly necessary. It's a stylistic choice the author can make as to how to provide it, but I can't think of a scenario where the only way to accomplish goal X is to use a prologue.


----------



## evolution_rex (Sep 27, 2016)

To me, a prologue is just another part of the story. That means that every word has to have a reason to exist. But that also means that I find the term 'prologue' to be useless. I think people see the word prologue and all they think is that it's part of the story that you can skip. And to me, if you believe the reader can skip that part, then it's not worth writing it in there. If you want the beginning of your story to take place on a battlefield millions of years before the rest of the story, then why can't that just be the first chapter? Because it doesn't revolve around the main character? I don't get it.

But I've never really had any trouble reading prologues. Even if it's a redundant prologue I still for the most part don't mind reading through it. The writer wrote it and so that means, to me, that it's suppose to be read.


EDIT: That's all referring to prologues when it's written in a more narrative form. If it's written something like you see at the beginning of Star Wars, then frankly it doesn't belong as a first chapter or prologue. That kind of stuff is pointless in a novel unless you absolutely cannot find a plausible way to write the exposition within the story.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 27, 2016)

The word "prologue" means something like "before the speech," or at least something along those general lines. So when a writer uses a prologue it seems to me they're admitting that what is there something that comes _before_ the story, and most times I'd just as soon get straight to the story.


----------



## Penpilot (Sep 27, 2016)

I've never skipped a prologue. I hate the prologue as much as a I hate the period and the letter Q. And I think I agree with Malik here. Prologue should be necessary and add to the understanding of the story.

I think the contention may be that some will ask, "Can't that info be revealed during the course of the main story?"

To, the answer to that is sometimes yes. Other times, no. In one of my novels, the prologue takes place twenty years before the main story starts. I tinkered with removing it, but then chapter 1 loses something. And simply renaming the prologue chapter -1 creates an odd time jump. 

The prologue is a tool that lets you reveal something important before the main story starts, and helps avoid awkward time shifts and change of POV characters. 

Look at the famous Star Wars crawl, and even all the beginning bits involving the princess and the escaping droids. That's IMHO all prologue, and imagining what the film would look like without that. It'd still work as a coherent story if we simply start with Luke on Tatooine, but I think it loses something.


----------



## glutton (Sep 27, 2016)

evolution_rex said:


> To me, a prologue is just another part of the story. That means that every word has to have a reason to exist. But that also means that I find the term 'prologue' to be useless. I think people see the word prologue and all they think is that it's part of the story that you can skip. And to me, if you believe the reader can skip that part, then it's not worth writing it in there. If you want the beginning of your story to take place on a battlefield millions of years before the rest of the story, then why can't that just be the first chapter? Because it doesn't revolve around the main character? I don't get it.
> 
> But I've never really had any trouble reading prologues. Even if it's a redundant prologue I still for the most part don't mind reading through it. The writer wrote it and so that means, to me, that it's suppose to be read.
> 
> ...



Yeah I don't label the things that could be considered a prologue 'Prologue' in my works because people inaccurately generalize them as boring infodumps when they could just as well be a character-establishing scene of one of your main characters from before the events of the main story. In my current WIP my opening scene/'prologue' sets up the (re)introduction of a major character by showing what she was like years ago, to contrast with how she is now and make the reader question if that's really her or what the heck happened to her... up to a point. XD


----------



## Garren Jacobsen (Sep 27, 2016)

One of the better prologues out there is the White Walker one from GoT. I think that this sets the tone for the series and gives the reader notice that this ain't just about human politics but ice zombies are coming to wreck some ish up.


----------



## psychotick (Sep 28, 2016)

Hi,

I personally like prologues as much as I like the rest of the book. I write them too. But usually I write them to frame the future plot and show the world build. So in The Stars Betrayed my prologue was set a hundred years before the actual story and had none of the characters. It was there to frame the human world / empire, how it came to be and show the bad guys for what they were. That in turn saved an enormous amount of infodumping later on.

So for example in the story proper, you don't need to ask why my hero cowers against a wall when the captain walks past. The prologue has already told you he's an uber with super strength and a complete disregard for human life and a desire for ultimate power like all his kind. That he will slaughter my hero if he so much as looks at him the wrong way. And you know that because in the prologue set a century before you've had a first hand account of the ubers and how they came to power. You've already seen their hand so to speak. If I didn't have that prologue readers would be asking those questions and so I'd either have to infodump later on, or worse chuck in whole loads of one line explanations for my hero's actions and risk stealing the suspence from the action scenes.

Cheers, Greg.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 28, 2016)

Necessary is a loaded word, and perhaps not the right word. I am the kind of reader who enjoys being thrown into the story to see if I sink or swim, heck, I find I enjoy many movies more if I miss the first five minutes. So, most prologues for me are unnecessary, and therefore strictly speaking, are not "necessary". But it doesn't mean I dislike prologues in general either. 

Effective is the better word, and if effective they can be borderline "necessary." The most effective thing a prologue can do is be the equivalent to an opening shot in a movie, it grounds the reader into whatever reality they are being thrown into. One of the ultimate, and often bashed, prologues is LoTR, but most folks admit the prologue was probably very useful for its time period. This might be the perfect example of a prologue which is entirely unnecessary, but very effective. One of the things LoTR is noted for is that its fan base wanted to live in Middle Earth... the writing just sucked your ass in, it was just a world you wanted to be in, despite the blood and gore and violent evil. A whole lot of that is because of the feel of the prologue combined with the first chapters. Without the prologue, I doubt this exists to the extent it does, particularly back when the book was released. 

Let's take Star Wars for the fun of it, was the scrolling intro necessary? Strictly speaking no. But for a 9-10 year old kid sitting in the theater for the first time (and probably for the majority of adults in 1977) the scrolling "prologue" feeds you with info and tension and the "splash" of dramatic music, it is all part of an extremely effective introduction. Without it, the movie would be missing something... now, this intro loses some effectiveness as the franchise moves on, but seriously, I'd rather read these little blurbs than deal with some info-dump butler and maid conversation moments into the flick. Let's take this further into the "narrative" prologue of Star Wars... which is the entire scene on the ship with the Princess and escaping droids. If written as a book in the style of GoT, this could easily have been written as the prologue and Chapter 1 we open on Luke and family. So, we begin to dig into the meaning of prologue. Was it necessary? No. Effective? Yes.

Now GoT... this has a narrative prologue that might as well be Chapter 1, and puts a different spin on the prologue than LoTR. It is a "showing prologue" as opposed to the more telling prologue of LoTR. As a narrative intro it gets a bit of a pass, but is it necessary? No, not strictly speaking. Was it effective? Yes. Without it, the reader is left to wonder if the Others are just some spook story as the characters (mostly) believe. The Prologue grounds us into the world: Here there be nasty winters and dead people and some head-lopping Others! Job done. What else does this being a prologue do for the reader, why is not a chapter? It is an implicit message to the reader... WARNING: don't become emotionally invested in these characters. As writers we might argue over the merits of this, but for the mass audience, this is probably an important point. Folks don't tend to like POV characters from chapter 1 getting bumped off in chapter 2, but with a prologue character there isn't a survival clause in the reader-writer contract.

Next, James Bond. The movies always have what is effectively a narrative prologue, but they also always involve the main character (something most prologues don't do). The prologues here hit us with action and they end up having something to do with the greater movie, but what is the real point of them? To ground us in the world of James Bond... sex, guns, and explosions! They are extremely effective, but not strictly necessary.

The point of all these prologues, whether book or movie, is to ground the audience in the world at hand while also doling out important information. Is it effective is the question to be answered, not is it necessary.



Steerpike said:


> Is there such a thing, strictly speaking?


----------



## Russ (Sep 28, 2016)

Netardapope said:


> This is an issue that infuriates me to no end. Often times, on writing advice articles and the like, people say that we should avoid prologues. Now, I'll be the first to say that if a prologue adds nothing to the story, it should be cut, but the people who make these articles take it to the next level!
> 
> They'll say things along the lines of 'no one reads the prologues' or 'it's just used to pad out the story' but these seem to be opinions that almost no one holds!
> 
> ...



Now I don't know which writing advice articles you are talking about, but I know a group of people who tend to say that the vast majority of prologues they see are unneeded and don't help the work.

Those people are editors at publishers.

I think the origin of this general "rule" lies with editors who have seen way too many crappy unnecessary prologues.

Generally I agree that many prologues are not needed.  Most of the fantasy I read is published by a traditional publisher which means that they have been vetted and edited and the vast, vast majority of the crappy prologues out there never make it to a traditionally published book.  And I still find many of those unnecessary, boring and often I do skip them.

Editors look very skeptically at prologues, and the many of he best teachers of modern writing teach that they are rarely needed.  I agree prologues should be rare.  I have a good friend who is an author who teaches a lot of writing courses that teaches that prologues are only needed for very specific purposes and I think he is right, they are way overdone (as an aside I should say that all of his books have a prologue, but for what he writes they really are needed).

Personally I don't have any frustration with "modern writing advice".  Like all advice I use what I think will work with me and ignore the rest.  However, if I was trying to sell a book to a publisher or get an agent, and I know that agents and publishers are skeptical of prologues I would think long and hard about if and how I would do one.

I would also suggest that prologues are more acceptable and more common in fantasy than any other commercial fiction.



> In epic fantasy, absolutely. The prologue is critical. 99% of the time. Again: it's the world's introductory scene.



I totally disagree with this approach.  This suggests a prologue is a place to info dump your world building. That is exactly what a prologue shouldn't be.

The best use of a prologue is to show the initiating event when it is temporally or geographically distant from the point where the protagonist get involved with the plot.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Sep 28, 2016)

I think Russ nailed it on the head, not often I agree with everything a longer post states, LOL. 

I will tack on one additional thought on why I (might) like prologues. When I am perusing books to read and there is a quick prologue that "sets the story" it gives me a hammer with which to judge the book, LOL. It's a bit like an extension of the blurb on the back cover, and allows me to better filter whether this book is for me. So,I've never put down a book because of having a prologue, but I have put them down because the prologue clarified that the book wasn't for me, either due to story or the writer.

Whether this is an argument for or against prologues is up to you, LOL.


----------



## Creed (Sep 28, 2016)

I don't skip prologues. I really don't understand why people do.

_Should I buy/read this book?_
Read the first sentence, then paragraph, whatever. But if the writing's bad in the prologue, you've already got your answer and it's pointless skipping to Chapter 1. If there's a prologue, the writer thought it was necessary. And prologues should still be hooks, right?

I'm confused, genuinely, by the logic behind skipping prologues. It's been said several times that people skip them if they don't add to the story. But... how can you possibly know if it doesn't add to the story unless you've *read the prologue*, and then *the whole story*?

Major example: _Memories of Ice_. If you didn't read the prologue, you didn't read the book properly. You ruined the climax for yourself. You wouldn't know that until it was too late. Or you'd never figure out where you went wrong, and just leave confused (as I'm sure many have done for the MBotF).

On the other hand... _Dust of Dreams_. It's been a while, and I would have been 14 when I read it, but I'm still not sure what that prologue was. Of course, nine mega-tomes in you can do that, and some of the appeal of the series is that you never pick up on everything the first time.

As for writing them, I teeter on the edge. Could what I call a prologue be called chapter 1? For my current project, maybe. But I cringe at the thought of doing that, and there's a reason. I just have to figure out if it's a good enough reason.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2016)

Creed said:


> I don't skip prologues. I really don't understand why people do.
> 
> _Should I buy/read this book?_
> Read the first sentence, then paragraph, whatever. But if the writing's bad in the prologue, you've already got your answer and it's pointless skipping to Chapter 1. If there's a prologue, the writer thought it was necessary. And prologues should still be hooks, right?
> ...



1) In many cases, it is immediately apparent why the author add the prologue (i.e. as an infodump). That doesn't add to, but detracts from the story, and you don't have to read the whole prologue to see it is going that direction.
2) I've read books where the prologue sucked, but starting at chapter 1 the book was pretty good (often because the story starts in chapter 1, and the author even knows that which is why she put that material in a place called "chapter 1."). 

If I see a book with a prologue in the bookstore, I'll sometimes just put it back on the shelf. But when it comes to reading the first few pages of the book to see if I'll like it I flip right to chapter 1, because chapter 1 could well be the start of a good book even if the author felt compelled to add a crappy prologue to the beginning of it.


----------



## evolution_rex (Sep 28, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> The word "prologue" means something like "before the speech," or at least something along those general lines. So when a writer uses a prologue it seems to me they're admitting that what is there something that comes _before_ the story, and most times I'd just as soon get straight to the story.


How can something be before the story? Doesn't, by writing it down, that make it part of the story and thus the beginning of the story?


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2016)

evolution_rex said:


> How can something be before the story? Doesn't, by writing it down, that make it part of the story and thus the beginning of the story?



Not at all. My "story" consists of a certain arc of events, characters, etc. All of the elements that go into making a story. As a hypothetical, I could write something completely unrelated and wholly irrelevant and slap it into a prologue, and by your definition that would become part of the story. That doesn't make sense. There has to be a line somewhere, and that line can't be the mere fact that it was written down and put in front of chapter 1. If we adopt that viewpoint, I could add two pages to the beginning of my epic fantasy about the time my cat Molly got lost and I drove around the neighborhood with fliers. Hey, now it's written down and in a prologue so it must be part of the story...no, it's actually nothing to do with the story at all 

An extreme example, but it demonstrates that just because something is written down it doesn't necessarily become part of the story. Prologues are generally more related to the story, but they're often a poor starting point (which is why they get stuck in 'prologue' and not chapter 1), and they often seem to be included because the author thinks she has to have to because she hasn't considered, or lacks the skill, to effectively transmit the same information to the reader within the work proper.

There are exceptions, of course. People have written effective prologues. I don't think anyone has ever written a _necessary_ one, and the bad ones outweigh the good, particularly when it comes to new writers.


----------



## evolution_rex (Sep 28, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> Not at all. My "story" consists of a certain arc of events, characters, etc. All of the elements that go into making a story. As a hypothetical, I could write something completely unrelated and wholly irrelevant and slap it into a prologue, and by your definition that would become part of the story. That doesn't make sense. There has to be a line somewhere, and that line can't be the mere fact that it was written down and put in front of chapter 1. If we adopt that viewpoint, I could add two pages to the beginning of my epic fantasy about the time my cat Molly got lost and I drove around the neighborhood with fliers. Hey, now it's written down and in a prologue so it must be part of the story...no, it's actually nothing to do with the story at all


If it's thematically or symbolically related to the rest of the story I'd argue that it can still be 'part' of the story. but if you're going to write a short story at the beginning of the novel, then it's not a prologue either, it's just a short story.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2016)

evolution_rex said:


> If it's thematically or symbolically related to the rest of the story I'd argue that it can still be 'part' of the story. but if you're going to write a short story at the beginning of the novel, then it's not a prologue either, it's just a short story.



Yes. You said above "Doesn't, by writing it down, that make it part of the story and thus the beginning of the story?" I'm just pointing out that can't be true. Likewise, you could call something a prologue that isn't part of the story, or more often perhaps not part of the story proper. Just because you've written it and labeled it as such doesn't mean it really belongs, or that it is the most effect way to convey information if it does belong.


----------



## Russ (Sep 28, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> 1) In many cases, it is immediately apparent why the author add the prologue (i.e. as an infodump). That doesn't add to, but detracts from the story, and you don't have to read the whole prologue to see it is going that direction.
> 2) I've read books where the prologue sucked, but starting at chapter 1 the book was pretty good (often because the story starts in chapter 1, and the author even knows that which is why she put that material in a place called "chapter 1.").
> 
> .




Totally agree.  I can quickly tell if a prologue is "one of those" prologues or something that might really add some value to the whole story.


----------



## Steerpike (Sep 28, 2016)

Russ said:


> Totally agree.  I can quickly tell if a prologue is "one of those" prologues or something that might really add some value to the whole story.



Yes. I have read so much that at this point it isn't hard to do. And I have no qualms about skipping them. I'm not sure why people take it personally, but in the unlikely event I ever used a prologue I wouldn't be offended if people skipped it. I'm just not likely to ever use one


----------



## X Equestris (Sep 28, 2016)

I hate prologues that dump history on you.  On rare occasions, an author pulls it off well, but the majority of that prologue type are terribly dull and boring.  If a prologue is truly necessary, I prefer ones along the lines of A Game of Thrones'


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 28, 2016)

You can count me among those who are skeptical of prologues, especially in fantasy. If you want to put me instantly on a critical footing, start your story with a prologue. You can still win me over, but you are starting your at bat down in the count.

That having been said, I wrote a dozen different openings to my WiP and wound up with a prologue. Augh! How did it happen? How can I justify it?

The novel has goblins in it. A horde of them, but they don't come swooping into the story until several chapters later. The early chapters are all about the protagonist, who is something of a jerk, taking command of a Roman legion on the frontier. He faces an immediate challenge and the early chapters are about that challenge, plus the usual filling in about the world, the plot, the characters.

But it would be very easy for the reader to suppose this is a historical novel, since I pay a lot of attention to historical detail. Even with hints about magic, the reader might suppose it's a historical novel with just a touch of low fantasy. 

What the prologue does is let the reader know, right up front, here be monsters. So, in the ensuing chapters, when I make oblique references to scouts who have not returned, and rumors among the local tribes, these points call back to something meaningful.

OK, by now I here you impatiently insisting I have not written a prologue, I've simply mis-numbered my chapters. I tried that. But here's the thing. There is a single human character in the opening (one of those scouts). He dies.

Chapter One should not begin with characters we are never going to see again. I entitled it Prologue, and it felt right. 

In all the discussion of what constitutes a prologue, I'd like to add another possibility. It's how I think of the Prologue in my novel.

It's the establishing shot. It frames the up-coming story in a way that the close-ups of Chapter One cannot, and should not. 

All of this is _ex post facto_ justification. I wrote the prologue, realized it was a prologue, then was so mystified, I spent a fair amount of time trying to figure out what had just happened. The above represents my conclusions. I fully intend never to write another prologue. IMO, prologues, like adverbs, should be used only when unavoidable.


----------



## Russ (Sep 28, 2016)

This, like the GOT prologue is one of the ways a prologue can be used effectively.  These goblins are an initiating event, they are critical to the plot arc of the story, and the reader knowing they exist increases tension.

The reader is thinking "Oh yeah I know Legate X is having this stupid problem with the legion, but the goblins are coming, I wonder when they are coming."

To give a related historical example, you could be doing a book about a roman general near the end of the Roman empire and you might chose to do a prologue depicting the barbarians crossing the frozen rhine.  This is not world building, it is a key initiating event geographically isolated from the protagonist...but not for long!

The actions of the goblins are an initiating event the readers need to know about.


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 28, 2016)

Agreed. (obviously!)

I certainly could have written it differently. I did, in fact. A bunch of times. But once I had that approach, it felt right, and none of my beta readers object, which is about all the validation I need. 

At that point, rewriting it would be doing so simply to achieve the ideological goal of not having a prologue. Which would be pretty silly.


----------



## Queshire (Sep 28, 2016)

Penpilot said:


> I've never skipped a prologue. I hate the prologue as much as a I hate the period and the letter Q.



Hey! What's wrong with the letter Q? D=<

On prolouges... I've never had a problem with them. Using them as an introductory scene for the world as mentioned before is a neat job, and I often find myself starting to write prolouge-y bits to help establish what of the plot is in motion before my MCs show up, but that's mostly for my benefit. They may or may not stick around in the final product.


----------



## Netardapope (Sep 28, 2016)

Malik said:


> Blog post on exactly this:
> 
> Everything You Ever Wanted to Ask About Prologues but were Afraid to Know
> 
> ...


I see what you mean, prologues do have a function depending on what genre you're in. I guess it's kind of like those things that people write in because they want to have one, like a blind tradition.

P.S.: Sorry I haven't been on this thread for a while. I've been busy and very sick

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Netardapope (Sep 28, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> I definitely skip prologues at times. I've also put books back on the shelves and not bought them when it came down to a choice between one that has a prologue and another that doesn't. This is because I often find I don't enjoy prologues. I know some who read them, and others who skip them, and because of the latter people often say you shouldn't put anything important in the prologue. But if you don't have anything important in there you may as well just remove it.


I can agree with you there, but I find that that was a problem with older books. I think modern prologues learned their lesson for the most part (many exceptions of course) but all in all, I think most are good know.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Netardapope (Sep 28, 2016)

Steerpike said:


> All of the information about what the world was like _before_ could be provided through a variety of mechanisms within the narrative proper, so I don't view it as strictly necessary. It's a stylistic choice the author can make as to how to provide it, but I can't think of a scenario where the only way to accomplish goal X is to use a prologue.


I see where you're coming from, but I feel a prologue tends to give a "purer" intro to the world, since it doesn't tend to have the perspective of the main character. So in that sense, I do see them as more effective in introducing the world.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Netardapope (Sep 28, 2016)

evolution_rex said:


> To me, a prologue is just another part of the story. That means that every word has to have a reason to exist. But that also means that I find the term 'prologue' to be useless. I think people see the word prologue and all they think is that it's part of the story that you can skip. And to me, if you believe the reader can skip that part, then it's not worth writing it in there. If you want the beginning of your story to take place on a battlefield millions of years before the rest of the story, then why can't that just be the first chapter? Because it doesn't revolve around the main character? I don't get it.
> 
> But I've never really had any trouble reading prologues. Even if it's a redundant prologue I still for the most part don't mind reading through it. The writer wrote it and so that means, to me, that it's suppose to be read.
> 
> ...


I think that there is a difference between the prologue and the first chapter. In one sense, it makes it less jarring to skip from a very old time period to the present one, because it presents itself as being autonomous from the main story in a way. maybe it's just me, but if chapter 2 takes place a 1000 Years after chapter 1, I'd be confused. It'd make me stop reading to see if I understood properly, thus taking me out of the story It has to do with pacing in my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk


----------



## Incanus (Sep 30, 2016)

I’ve never understood why some readers have a problem with prologues.  It’s just an issue of formatting, or a tool.  Formats and tools can be misused, but that’s not an inherent fault of the technique.

How much difference is there between eating a meal while sitting on a chair, and eating the same meal while sitting on a couch?  The meal tastes the same, has the same nutritional content, either way.

You’ll eat green eggs and ham on a plane, but not on a train?  I can’t imagine why.

The book I’m reading at the moment has a 77-page, 5 chapter prologue.  It’s not world-building stuff, it’s crucial, dramatic story events.  It can’t be folded in elsewhere, but it could have just been called Part 1 or something.  Wouldn’t have made the slightest difference to me.  A rose by any other name…


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Sep 30, 2016)

Incanus said:


> I’ve never understood why some readers have a problem with prologues.  It’s just an issue of formatting, or a tool.  Formats and tools can be misused, but that’s not an inherent fault of the technique.
> 
> How much difference is there between eating a meal while sitting on a chair, and eating the same meal while sitting on a couch?  The meal tastes the same, has the same nutritional content, either way.
> 
> ...



That's just it though for some of us, lol. If there's no necessity of calling it a prologue, don't call it a prologue, sometimes the pointlessness alone can be bothersome


----------



## skip.knox (Sep 30, 2016)

>I’ve never understood why some readers have a problem with prologues. 

I think it happens like this, Incanus. A great many prologues are poorly done. So are Chapter Ones or Chapter Twelves. But "prologue" has a specific name. It's harder to claim nobody needs a Chapter Twelve. In other words, people are reacting to bad writing. "Prologue" is easy to identify and is encountered more often than Chapter Twelves.

The other part is this. People who teach writing, who write books that teach writing, who write blogs about writing about writing, need "lessons" they can offer. The bloggers and tweeters, in particular, need something brief (if not always pithy). Something that nestles comfortably into bullet points.

Enter: Avoid Prologues

Brief enough even to fit on a Powerpoint slide. Credibility is gained because so much evidence can be presented. There are no end of awful Prologues ready to hand for the aspiring workshop teacher. The advice gets repeated and amplified in the IEO (Internet Echo Chamber) _et voilÃ _, we have collective wisdom.

It's so easily modified. It should read "Avoid Bad Prologues". But, of course, that throws an intolerable burden onto the shoulders of the teacher/adviser/critic, for now they need to be able to say how to write well.

Well, I've finished off my bottle of cynicism. Tasty as always, though a little bitter.


----------



## mulierrex (Oct 1, 2016)

I like prologues. Well, some of them. The ones that make the most sense to me personally and I enjoy reading are the ones that explain the plot or give background on what the main characters are going to be doing. For example, a prologue that takes place some time before the main story, and sets the course of the main plot in motion. For an actual example: while the Hobbit didn't have a prologue, it could've, I suppose, have been about the dwarves. That way I wouldn't have been confused for the first 30% of the book wondering why they're even going on the journey, lol.

However, I think even prologues that are just throwaway info-dumps are interesting -- though that's probably because I have this strange obsession with worldbuilding. So I don't know how useful my opinion is here 

And while this isn't related to prologues, I really loves novels that have maps in the beginning pages... I'm constantly going back to check them during reading.


----------



## Incanus (Oct 3, 2016)

Great insight, Skip.  Thanks for that.  I agree.

The one writing class I took at a community college in the 90's never brought up prologues that I can remember.  Nor did any of the 30-40 writing books I've read.

I guess this is something relatively new then.

I'll stick with getting to the heart of the matter:  bad writing.

A Ben Franklin quote seems apropos:  "There never was a good knife made of bad steel."


----------



## Russ (Oct 3, 2016)

skip.knox said:


> >I’ve never understood why some readers have a problem with prologues.
> 
> I think it happens like this, Incanus. A great many prologues are poorly done. So are Chapter Ones or Chapter Twelves. But "prologue" has a specific name. It's harder to claim nobody needs a Chapter Twelve. In other words, people are reacting to bad writing. "Prologue" is easy to identify and is encountered more often than Chapter Twelves.
> 
> ...



That is some serious speculative cynicism.  

Let me offer a different perspective, based less on speculation.

Editors and agents see tons of books and see huge numbers of bad or useless prologues.  They conclude that the need for a prologue is rare, (while indeed the need for a Chapter One, or a denouement or a climax is universal) and that they are beyond the means of most beginning writers to execute, so they, in response to the massive number of times they are asked questions by unpublished writers every time they show their face in public that most prologues are bad and most books don't need them or shouldn't have them.

They also see new data these days that convinces them that people's attention spans are getting shorter and that many people who start books don't finish them.  They believe that faster paced books are more popular.  They believe, and learn,  that prologues that engage in character development or world building as their primary purpose make them less palatable to the modern book consumer.  

I have no doubt that there is a body of people who teach more about writing than do the craft, but there is also a body of people who are very good, thoughtful, well educated, successful writers who love and understand both the craft and the market who suggest the situations where a prologue is really needed are quite rare.  

One is perfectly free to ignore their thoughts and engage in speculation about the Internet Echo Chamber.  

Personally I find your cynicism tastes kind of watery, or lacking in substance. Heaven forbid that "Credibility is gained because so much evidence is presented."  Perhaps we should flee from evidence to emancipate ourselves.


----------



## MAndreas (Oct 7, 2016)

I skip them. Sorry, I really don't like them. But I do agree it's a personal choice and for every person like me, there are folks who love them. I think it also depends as to why they are there. Some bias against them in the publishing world is due to authors using them as a "pre-info-dump" instead of finding a way to work that backstory into the book.

That being said, if you like them, and your story has one--stick to your guns. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## KBA (Oct 12, 2016)

I find myself always reading them, but feeling impatient if they're long. I want to jump right into the main story, and if I page through the prologue and see it's many pages long, I'll still read it, but with a slight twinge of wanting it to hurry up.


----------



## SeverinR (Oct 13, 2016)

I usually start reading the first page with words. Usually I will figure out its a prologue fairly quickly and if it doesn't grab me as the first line, paragraph or page should, I skip it.
I don't remember ever having to go back and read a skipped Prologue once I was into the story. So it wasn't needed and probably didn't add to the story.

I have read some prologues that grabbed my attention. No matter what classification page one of the story starts, it needs to grip the reader.  
BTW if I actually notice a prologue I usually skip it, because most of the ones I have read are boring.


----------



## Azora (Oct 14, 2016)

I think they should be avoided not because they're bad, but because a lot of people skip them, so if you put important info in your prolouge and the reader skips it, then the story wont make much sense to them. That's why I don't write prologues.


----------



## Malik (Oct 14, 2016)

Azora said:


> I think they should be avoided not because they're bad, but because a lot of people skip them, so if you put important info in your prolouge and the reader skips it, then the story wont make much sense to them. That's why I don't write prologues.



If the reader skips your prologue and they find themselves lost a few pages in, then your prologue is obviously necessary, which means you've done it correctly.

If the reader can skip your prologue and still know what's going on, your prologue is unnecessary. Kill it with fire.


----------



## Steerpike (Oct 14, 2016)

I've seen writing advice on a number of occasions saying not to put essential information in the prologue because many readers do skip them and if they're lost they may or the book down and be less likely to buy your other books. Which leads to the question of why have one. I don't know that I've read many that are essential to the book, however.


----------



## Chessie (Oct 14, 2016)

As much as I hate George R.R. Martin, his prologue in GOT is one I actually enjoyed. It was done right imo. When prologues are engaging and make me wonder more about what's to come, then I'll read them. It is kind of sad that they're getting skipped more often than not now; seems like some of the old storytelling techniques (like prologues, omniscient, writing without rules) just keep getting cut for lifeless prose.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 15, 2016)

While I'm agnostic on prologues, this on it's face is simplistic and wrong. If a reader skips your prologue and gets lost, it might just mean chapter one was written on the piss-poor side, LOL. Just because the info in the prologue is necessary doesn't mean it was necessary to be in a prologue. This sort of black and white judgment of prologues if off base. Prologues can serve more than one purpose.



Malik said:


> If the reader skips your prologue and they find themselves lost a few pages in, then your prologue is obviously necessary, which means you've done it correctly.
> 
> If the reader can skip your prologue and still know what's going on, your prologue is unnecessary. Kill it with fire.


----------



## Demesnedenoir (Oct 15, 2016)

And this demonstrates a different form of prologue... the chapter that is called a prologue for a variety of tactical reasons. This is the easiest form of prologue to justify in modern publishing, IMO.





Chesterama said:


> As much as I hate George R.R. Martin, his prologue in GOT is one I actually enjoyed. It was done right imo. When prologues are engaging and make me wonder more about what's to come, then I'll read them. It is kind of sad that they're getting skipped more often than not now; seems like some of the old storytelling techniques (like prologues, omniscient, writing without rules) just keep getting cut for lifeless prose.


----------



## DragonOfTheAerie (Oct 15, 2016)

I skip prologues if they don't grab me in the way that a story beginning should. If they're just a bunch of extraneous backstory stuff that I can't understand or care about yet. I'll read a good prologue but sadly most are infodumps, a pointless action scene to serve as a hook that distracts from the terrible, uninspiring beginning, or backstory I can't understand until after I've finished the book. I rarely miss them. 

I once read an entire book series (30+ books, each with a prologue) and skipped every prologue and never got confused or missed anything. I wonder sometimes what was in all those prologues, but it can't have been too important.


----------

