Prologue length

[pmmg]

I wrestled with this too. I went looking for a different word than Prolog, and there are a few, but I passed on Prelude because it was a music term. In the end, I stuck with Prolog. Its the correct term, so I kept it.

Edited to remove the question that was already answered...my bad.

 

[Rexenm]

Well, I saw a writer/s use preface, which is generally used for academic works, apparently.

 

[ThinkerX]

The original novels of my 'Empire' series had prologues. Mostly they flopped. Multiple rewrites later, just two of them retain prologues - the one in Metropolis' checks in at about 500 words and provides insight as to why certain characters are doing certain things. The other one, in 'Spiral,' is several thousand words and explains how a couple of secondary characters switched worlds.

None of the reviewers commented on the prologue in 'Metropolis.' They seemed to like the prologue in 'Spiral.'

As to the works theoretically in progress - 'Labyrinth War' and 'Southern Heat' have no prologues. 'Pilgrimage' will likely have two prologues to account for... stuff.

 

[JBCrowson]

I like prologues when they feel right. And that’s a hard thing to define, but one example I can give you is a famous one; the prologue to the first book in the A Song of Ice and Fire series, A Game of Thrones. It sets up the story so that it lets the reader in on a secret, and I’d bet it’s at least 3000 words long or more.

Another prologue i liked was the one at the beginning of Gardens of the Moon, the first of the Malazan books.

I use historical scenes, not involving the main characters but which are important to understand one or more aspects of the book, as prologues.

 

[Mad Swede]

OK. A prologue is not a preface. The difference is that a preface gives the authors view on some aspect of the story whilst a prologue starts the story in some way.

I sometimes use a prologue in my stories, usually to start the story from the point of view of a character who is not one of the protagonists or antagonists. I keep my prologues short, maybe 300 words or so. And I make sure that the prologue acts as a hook for the whole story, so my prologues are almost always in media res.

 

[Orilindë]

The original novels of my 'Empire' series had prologues. Mostly they flopped. Multiple rewrites later, just two of them retain prologues - the one in Metropolis' checks in at about 500 words and provides insight as to why certain characters are doing certain things. The other one, in 'Spiral,' is several thousand words and explains how a couple of secondary characters switched worlds.

None of the reviewers commented on the prologue in 'Metropolis.' They seemed to like the prologue in 'Spiral.'

As to the works theoretically in progress - 'Labyrinth War' and 'Southern Heat' have no prologues. 'Pilgrimage' will likely have two prologues to account for... stuff.

So you mean your prologues are stand-alone novellas. As in not included in your main books?

 

[Demesnedenoir]

It depends on the type of prologue. GoT has a "chapter prologue" that works well, and it is, well, chapter length. My editor talked me into a brief "prologue" though I didn't want one, but I don't think of it as a prologue. I called it "A Forgotten Voice," and that's its only label. If someone skips it, they're good to go. If they read it before and after the first three novels, they will, maybe, grasp more of what is going on. It's a page and a half-ish and sets the background of the story. It's actually one piece of dialogue from a character the readers won't meet for a long time, and they won't know that when they do meet her. Nor will they realize she's a dragon. That's half the fun, when readers figure it out and drop me a line.

I'm not sure if there are any right or wrongs to this, if there are, please enlighten me. But I think I feel that I now have a prologue for my story I'm working on. As of now, it's roughly 3000 words. The dos' and don'ts are maybe of prologues might be hard to define depending on if it's actually a good prologue or not. Maybe I should post it in Critique Requests even tough I'm super nervous about that of course...

 

[TWErvin2]

Write the prologue. Keep it as short/brief as possible. Then, as you complete the tale, see if you can work the background/history into the narrative and plot as the story unfolds.

One of the weaknesses of a prologue is that the reader is often introduced to names/places/events that have little to no relevance to them, nothing to connect to or idenify with. Working the pertinent information into the text, so that it is presented in context of the overall tale helps aleviate this concern or weakness.

 

[Jackarandajam]

I've heard to generally:
1. Keep prologues as immediately relevant as possible, like a piece of candy to get the reader through the story's beginning setup.
2. Make them interesting by themselves, not just "ten thousand years ago" info-dumps.
3. Make them as short as possible.

 

[ThinkerX]

So you mean your prologues are stand-alone novellas. As in not included in your main books?

The ones I dropped were effectively short stories. The issue was relevance - what I thought of as scene setting didn't go over that well.

The ones I retained are also short stories - but are relevant to what happens later on. For that matter, most of my chapters are effectively short stories.

 

[The Dark One]

Most people skip prologs.

Prolog's tend to introduce things that would not get an introduction otherwise, such as the world, or some forgotten part of the bigger conflict.

Prologs are as long as they need to be to accomplish that.

3000 words is long for me. Most of my prologs are under 500 words.

And yes, if you want people to have a more useful opinion to offer, you will have to post it up.

Where do you get the data for this?

As an author, I'd be utterly gobsmacked at the idea of a reader skipping a prologue.

Why - with the same logic - wouldn't they skip chapter 1 ... or the first ten chapters ... or every chapter until the last?

It makes absolutely no sense that a reader might skip any part of a novel.

A prologue is basically about giving the reader some info that the MCs don't have - at that point - and therefore generates some intigue/anxiety when the MC brushes up against that info later in the story.

If you bought the book but didn't read the prologue ... you just wasted your money.

 

[Rexenm]

It makes absolutely no sense that a reader might skip any part of a novel.

I had to collect my thoughts for that. Maybe any part of a novel can fall on deaf ears.

 

[Jackarandajam]

Where do you get the data for this?

As an author, I'd be utterly gobsmacked at the idea of a reader skipping a prologue.

Why - with the same logic - wouldn't they skip chapter 1 ... or the first ten chapters ... or every chapter until the last?

It makes absolutely no sense that a reader might skip any part of a novel.

A prologue is basically about giving the reader some info that the MCs don't have - at that point - and therefore generates some intigue/anxiety when the MC brushes up against that info later in the story.

If you bought the book but didn't read the prologue ... you just wasted your money.

I've heard the same thing many times, I'll have to see if I can find a source for ya.

Personal theory:

A prologue I skimmed: The Way Of Kings by Brandon Sanderson.
A bunch of stuff is happening that I don't understand, with characters I get the sense I'm not about to meet. I have no investment and can't muster any. I'm lost in media res, my brain shrugs and my eyes glaze.

A nearly perfect prologue: Name of the Wind by Patrick Rothfuss.
Beautifully written, immediately relevant. Let me know something about the main character that raised my interest and the suspense of the story immediately.

 

[Karlin]

I added a 600 word prologue to my book after it was written. It was suggested by an editor. It's more of a framework for the story: the recent discovery of an ancient manuscript, i.e. the book you are about to read.

I think it gives context to the story, while triggering the reader's curiosity.

"A team of Chinese and Jewish scholars worked together to reconstruct the original events, which are presented in this book, without further ado.
To quote the manuscript: “We do not yet know the details of that Second Journey: let’s find out in the next chapter.”

 

[Prince of Spires]

The "people always skip prologues" gets throw around a lot, and I don't buy it. I always get the impression it's mainly said by people who tend to skip prologues. That's fine of course, they don't have to read them. But extrapolating your own way of doing things to how everyone does it rarely works. I think most people just start a novel on page one and read, ignoring if chapter 1 is called chapter 1 or prologue. Then there is a vocal minority who doesn't like prologues, and they tell people not to write them.

I think basing including a prologue on if the novel can stand on its own without it or not is a bad way to approach it. Very few chapters are absolutely crucial, and you probably can skip one or two and still be fine in understanding the overal story. You might just miss some of the finer details or need a page to figure out what happened. But it's like missing 5 minutes of a TV show, you tend to catch up and fill in the blanks just fine.

That doesn't mean you always need a prologue, or that all of them deserve to be there. I think it was Malik who said that prologues introduce the world as a character. I like that definition, and I think it's a good way to approach it. It's what the Game of Thrones prologue does, as well as many others that work. Of course you can come it with different reasons for a prologue, but I think that's the main one.

 

[pmmg]

Where do you get the data for this?

As an author, I'd be utterly gobsmacked at the idea of a reader skipping a prologue.

Here I should have said 'many' and not 'most'. I doubt you can find any study or scientific method that will give reliable numbers on this (and even if you did, I bet they don't stand up to scrutiny). I base this on the many times i have seen and heard people say they skip the prologs. Why, because the are usually thick, infodumpy and boring.

(Anecdotally, present company excluded, my observation over the years is that it is in fact, most.)


That you are gobsmacked makes no difference. Many people skip these.


For myself, I almost always skip them initially, and might come back to read them if I get curios enough.... Though, I should add, much of what I read is people from sites like this, who are only showing me the rough. For that, I tend to read the prolog cause that is something they are seeking feedback on.

I'd also add, in an audio book, I dont skip it unless its boring.

 

[Finchbearer]

I think the only problem with prologues is when you start thinking about the validity of them, and as a reader at least, I don’t think I really put too much weight into books with prologues I’ve enjoyed if were to just start reading them from chapter 1. I think GoT also works well because of how the rest of the book is formatted. We are constantly jumping perspectives, and of course the prologue is as long as a chapter. Shorter prologues that are more abstract or poetic are probably what I actually prefer, rather than something that feels random and disjointed from the rest of the story at large.

 

[pmmg]

The "people always skip prologues" gets throw around a lot, and I don't buy it. I always get the impression it's mainly said by people who tend to skip prologues. That's fine of course, they don't have to read them. But extrapolating your own way of doing things to how everyone does it rarely works.

Did somebody say that? Always? Clearly that is false, some will read them and some will not.

I don't think anyone has extrapolated either, or suggested that their way of doing things is the way others do. (Though I do suspect, there are many out there who do approach it the same way I do. I tend to skip at first, come back to read later (prologs) if I am moved to. What percentages? I have no idea).

Then there is a vocal minority who doesn't like prologues, and they tell people not to write them.

Where was this said? Go ahead and write them. If its what the book needs, then you gotta give it what it needs. <--that, I have said many times.

If there are people saying this, I would think they are a minority in a minority. People may not prefer them, but I cant imagine there are actual vocal armies of people saying don't ever.


Malik did have a good presentation.

 

[Ban]

The notion of skipping prologues reminds me of someone back in school who told me they skipped everything that was written in parentheses and brackets. It's a silly notion that I reckon the fellow in question abandoned well before adulthood. If a prologue is present (just like these words between parentheses) I imagine there is an intended use for them and trust that the author does not include them without reason. Prologues are useful for framing a story, enticing readers with what is to come or introducing key elements of the narrative that aren't present in the first chapters.

 

[pmmg]

The notion of skipping prologues reminds me of someone back in school who told me they skipped everything that was written in parentheses and brackets. It's a silly notion that I reckon the fellow in question abandoned well before adulthood. If a prologue is present (just like these words between parentheses) I imagine there is an intended use for them and trust that the author does not include them without reason. Prologues are useful for framing a story, enticing readers with what is to come or introducing key elements of the narrative that aren't present in the first chapters.

Well...trust is the issue. I have read too many prologs that did not win my trust, and in fact hurt it. Prologs are the dull stuff. So....affording trust right from the start is not a given. Show in the book you've earned it, and I might go back to the prolog. But experience teaches me, I often dont need them.

So, I would put at the top of the list of things authors must accomplish in chapter 1, is win the trust of the reader.