Prologue, yay or nay?

[Demesnedenoir]

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

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

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

 

[Michael K. Eidson]

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

 

[Penpilot]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My 2 Cents

 

[Incanus]

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

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

 

[Heliotrope]

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

 

[Demesnedenoir]

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

 

[Demesnedenoir]

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

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

 

[Heliotrope]

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

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

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

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

 

[Aurora]

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

 

[Russ]

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

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

 

[Demesnedenoir]

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

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

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

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

 

[skip.knox]

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

 

[Heliotrope]

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

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

 

[FifthView]

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

 

[Heliotrope]

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

 

[Steerpike]

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

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

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

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