• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Why are you married to a prologue/epilogue?

Leif GS Notae

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

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

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

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

Steerpike

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

Ireth

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

I think a lot of people use the prologue to infodump about their worlds -- history, mythology, whatever. I can think of one specific example where this was a good thing: Tolkien's Lord of the Rings has a prologue all about the nature and customs of hobbits. It's not like he goes all the way back to the Elder Days and blabs on about the Rings of Power; he tells us about what the protagonists are, what their race is like, what their homes and things are like. We get a chance to get to know them before the real story begins and we're thrust into a fantasy world, so we're not left going "What? Why does everyone have hairy feet? What's a hobbit?" Though many people usually skim it on a first reading (me included), it does help the first few chapters of the story make a lot more sense.
 
I agree that too many people add prologs that aren't needed. One of my stories does have one, but only because that part of the story happens forty or so years prior to the real story. It covers the discovery of an event that shapes the rest of the story and gives the reason why the people were prepared for it and how they were able to discover the other things that were going wrong. It could be chapter one, but since the characters in the prolog are never in the story again, I felt it should be separated from the main part of the story. Typically I avoid doing them at all.
 

Steerpike

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

The Din

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

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

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

Mindfire

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

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

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

Penpilot

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

Steerpike

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

Caged Maiden

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

Shockley

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

Penpilot

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

No expert but two reasons come to mind for me.

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

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

Right or wrong, my two cents.
 

Chilari

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

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

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

Amanita

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

Leif GS Notae

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

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

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

Joanna

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

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

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

Rullenzar

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

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

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

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

Be a rebel and make a prologue, Rull out.
 

bbeams32

Scribe
I believe that prologues can be useful in introducing a story through a viewpoint/characters outside of the main protagonists. I'm not one to usually use prologues, but I'm a fan of using an epilogue to tie one story to the next outside of wrapping up the main story of that individual book.
 
I've got a prologue in my NIP. It introduces the main setting, and the major antagonist, and a few ancillary characters who show up later. There is very little in the way of infodump; it's all integrated into the events that happen in the prologue. We don't see the antagonist for several chapters afterward, but we do hear about him. Chapter 1 takes place in the same city as the prologue. The prologue's POV character dies at the end of the prologue (not a spoiler; the first sentence of the prologue tells you he dies).

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

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

Penpilot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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