Should we bother with prologues?

[Steerpike]

Damn! This is helpful, but at the same time vexing. Are you saying that instead of a prologue, one should set everything up in the first chapter?

I guess that's the key question, isn't it. Most of the time I find that the material in the prologue either could have been chapter 1, or really could have been eliminated in terms of "set up," and the information just provided to the reader more naturally over the course of the story itself. I like the advice "start at the beginning," and to me a prologue, by definition, says you are starting somewhere other than the beginning.

Hopefully it goes without saying that this is my personal view and I also believe that each writer should follow his or her own vision of a story. If that vision includes a prologue, then so be it. But perhaps some of the criticism of prologues generally can help people avoid problems with theirs.

One thing that happens a lot in fantasy is that a writer develops a ton of backstory, history, culture, and all of the other things that come through world-building, and they take the view that the reader is damn well going to hear about it whether it is necessary or desirable for them to do so. Prologues often include that sort of material as well. In my view

 

[Reaver]

I guess that's the key question, isn't it. Most of the time I find that the material in the prologue either could have been chapter 1, or really could have been eliminated in terms of "set up," and the information just provided to the reader more naturally over the course of the story itself. I like the advice "start at the beginning," and to me a prologue, by definition, says you are starting somewhere other than the beginning.

Well said. Now that I think about it, my prologues have been a bit long and I've found myself fretting over info to present to set up the whole thing. I think I'll just turn it into Chapter One and go from there. It'll be a lot less stressful that way.

 

[The Blue Lotus]

I was always told that they are silly and should be avoided... So I took what was my pro and have been working on hammering it into a full chapter.

 

[Jess A]

I kept my prologue short and to the point - so I could include the little 'past' event. There is no need to annoy the reader with 'this is my world's history'. A prologue works for my current story. However, a prologue has not always worked for other stories that I have written. It is simply a matter of 'does it serve my book'? It did, and so I used it. I have read books which have a prologue tacked onto it for no reason - and hence simply does not need to be there.

Prologues should not be discounted - they should be used when appropriate. Much like anything.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

Orson Scott Card once said the following:

"I have learned, as a book reviewer, that's it's usually best to skip the prologue entirely and begin with the story - as the author should also have done. I have never - not once - found that by skipping the prologue I missed some information I needed in order to read the story; and when I have read the prologue first, I have never - not once - fount it interesting, helpful, or even understandable."

I wonder if Card hates appetizers and overtures too.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

I wonder if Card hates appetizers and overtures too.

If the appetizer is thirty pounds of lard...I think I'd skip it too. I believe the point OSC is trying to make is that the story begins at chapter 1, and everything that the reader should know should be in the story. If you are going for a large meal, you sometimes have to wonder why you would need an appetizer.

Prologs are not food, or music, they are prologs, and too many people feel they don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of the story, which is why they get such a bad reputation for being an info dumping ground. Maybe the question should be why someone needs a prolog to start with. Instead of saying "sure, just pop one in", we should ask, what is the reason for it?