Should we bother with prologues?

[At Dusk I Reign]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Erica]

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]

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]

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]

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