The Art Of The Prologue

[Rullenzar]

What makes a good prologue?
Do people prefer the prologue be about an intimate character to the storyline?
Or unknown characters that tie into it because of the world events that take place?

I have seen so many types of prologues it gets me thinking of what people actually like to see. I myself prefer the ones that tie into at least one character from your book. Be it a big or small role.
However I've seen well done prologues that feature characters who never come to light in that actual novel and are there just because of the event or horror that the author is trying to introduce the reader to.

So, I ask you, what types of prologues do you prefer?
Which would you do without?
And do you even find them necessary?

 

[MAndreas]

Personally, I don't like them at all, an am very likely to not read them. It's a personal bias, but I often feel that a prologue either means the author started the "story" in the wrong spot, or they lost control of their plotting.

So my vote would be none of the above .

 

[MadMadys]

Some folks here hate them for this reason or that (MA gave some above) but personally I have no issue with them in some cases. I don't think they signal any weakness on behalf of the writer or the plot. That said, I think the prologue should have some limits.

It should be short, maybe a page or two at most, and cover something that helps the reader understand the story going forward but wouldn't work in the actual chapters, at least cleanly. For example, if you're introducing either a totally new fantasy world or a very futuristic world, if the writer wants to give a brief backstory or something along those lines, I think a prologue works well. That way you avoid the info dump that often occurs in such worlds in the first couple chapters. That stuff that needs to be said for understanding the world/plot but it bogs down the narrative.

I don't like prologues that could have easily been chapters, though. It has to have a reason for being separate to the actual story. In my example above, it's just setting the stage to get the reader in the proper frame of mind.

 

[Sheriff Woody]

What makes a good prologue? Brevity.
Do people prefer the prologue be about an intimate character to the storyline? I only require necessary information, which is the purpose of a prologue.
Or unknown characters that tie into it because of the world events that take place? See the previous answer.

 

[Phietadix]

I prefer Prolougues that describe the setting or world where the story takes place. Sort of like LoTR's Prolougue, usually boring but helpful.

 

[Steerpike]

I don't like them and will often skip them. I read advice from an author that said never put crucial information in a prologue, because so many readers skip over them. Not sure how many people skip them versus how many read them, but if the information in a prologue I skipped is necessary to understand the story, then it makes the book seem poorly done (even though I'm the one who skipped the prologue).

 

[Reaver]

I don't like them and will often skip them. I read advice from an author that said never put crucial information in a prologue, because so many readers skip over them. Not sure how many people skip them versus how many read them, but if the information in a prologue I skipped is necessary to understand the story, then it makes the book seem poorly done (even though I'm the one who skipped the prologue).

Wow. It's like Deja vu all over again.

 

[Ireth]

I don't like them and will often skip them. I read advice from an author that said never put crucial information in a prologue, because so many readers skip over them. Not sure how many people skip them versus how many read them, but if the information in a prologue I skipped is necessary to understand the story, then it makes the book seem poorly done (even though I'm the one who skipped the prologue).

Well, that's really your own fault for skipping the prologue, I think. If there's no crucial info in a prologue, then there's no point in having it.

 

[Reaver]

The best prologue ever written (in my opinion, of course) is: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away". Everything after that is superfluous and not needed.

 

[Steerpike]

If there's no crucial info in a prologue, then there's no point in having it.

Exactly.

/10char

 

[JadedSidhe]

I'm in the prologue camp and the little (sometimes not so little) blurbs at the beginnings of chapters and sections of books. I loved how Erickson did them in the Malazan series.

Sometimes prologues are necessary, sometimes they're not. It really depends on the book and what needs to be done to tell the story.

 

[Addison]

Sometimes a prologue can be a first chapter. Some reviews have said that the first chapter of "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" could be a prologue. Mostly prologues are used in fantasy and sci-fi books. They're used to give the readers an understanding of the fantastic world they're about to dive into. Or they're there to instill excitement and sympathy to the protagonist so the reader keeps reading into the next chapter (which generally takes place several years after) to see if the character made it. This was done in "Harry Potter" and "The Emerald Atlas".
That said, I have a question about prologues and back story (as that's what prologues do) Obviously you want to give enough so the reader understands how the character got to where they are and who they are. That said, with a prologue, how much is enough. In Harry Potter we're given our protagonist, the tid bits of how he got to Privet drive and why. In Emerald Atlas we're given our protagonists, Kate, Emma and Michael, we see them being whisked away from their parents and an unseen danger (even a car chase of sorts) and left with a young lady at an orphanage. After both times we jump ahead to the story's present time and we have our hooks deep enough in the characters to not let go. Those are prologues well done.
But....how can I say this? Let's say your prologue is from the POV of a firefighter who see our protagonist stumbling out of the smoke, cut up and beat up, but alive. and later we're in the hospital in the POV of the surviving parent as they listen to the doctor's report and learn the child has amnesia. The first chapter takes place several years in the future. Have I given enough to have you interested in the character's future? Or would it be better to explain how the character got there through out the chapter in little bits?

 

[Steerpike]

Sometimes prologues are necessary, sometimes they're not. It really depends on the book and what needs to be done to tell the story.

How is one ever "necessary?" Seems to me to be optional in all cases. If a write insists on using on, I think short and interesting is best.

 

[Rullenzar]

Some very interesting points have been brought to light. I think the majority seem to believe that if done well the tid bits of the prologue can be incorporated into the story as you go. Which makes sense. The problem is coming up with a creative way of doing this that doesn't feel like an info dump.

I used to skip prologues myself until I thought about doing one and went back and read some to get an idea. Good info and has helped me decide not to make one. I'll find some creative solution to bring those parts into my story.

 

[Steerpike]

Info dumps can certainly be an issue. All to often, that is exactly what prologues are. I prefer to see the information worked effectively into the story itself. A prologue is a stylistic choice one might make, but never the only option of course.

 

[Zireael]

Hmm, I believe that an info dump is an info dump no matter if it's in the prologue or in a chapter(s).

 

[Steerpike]

Hmm, I believe that an info dump is an info dump no matter if it's in the prologue or in a chapter(s).

It is. But writers are more likely to make them info dumps in prologues. If you write effectively you can convey the information in the story without an infodump.

 

[wordwalker]

Okay, I can see that prologues offend a sense of a story's unity, that the tale "hasn't started" until the characters and elements start mixing together. Worse, too many authors overuse them --especially in fantasy, with its love of the past's pressure, and horror trying to show but not rush its dangers-- and also let them encourage infodumping, cliched prologue concepts, or other kinds of lazy writing.

But I think they're too useful not to consider. They're almost like the whole idea of starting with action or other excitement: they max out one statement to the reader rather than going straight to how you can integrate several things together. They're taking the easy route-- which is not bad in itself, just used by a lot of bad writers as well as good ones.

I think making prologues work might be whether there's one element that makes the right impression if you contrast it with the rest that way. And then, keep the ratio of fun to bulk especially high. Like in:

• Star Wars. Bare facts, and brief, but it was still about a war. And of course the real reason was the style it wrapped it all in; if Saturday Matinee Serials works, or a diary entry or teaching song or anything, maybe you've got your prologue.
• Harry Potter, or Lord of the Rings movie (partly): if a specific scene brings together or retells the key points in the history, use that. Puts the emphasis on that scene (Sauron and that mace!) and on the gap of time after it.
• Game of Thrones, or half the horror novels written: an isolated glimpse at a threat. When you just want that thrill established, but won't write it over to hit the MCs yet. Works with non-threat elements too, though I'm not sure they pay off as well.

And, one way I see writers being too prologue-happy is if Chapter One doesn't give an immediate sense of picking up plot devices from the prologue. LOTR's was all about the ring, Potter's moved on with the baby... Game of Thrones Chapter One didn't use the Others yet but at least manning the Wall against them was a big part of Stark purpose.

But Brandon Sanderson's Way of Kings (still one of the best books I've ever read) started centuries back with that "five hundred pages later we might get back to that root cause" feel, oy! A prologue ought to be a way to show what you're starting to deliver right now, not show off how much other content you have to cut the reader off from it.

 

[saellys]

If I absolutely have to read a prologue, I generally prefer that it last no more than a page or two, be from the perspective of a character who isn't a POV character for the rest of the novel (or, in very few instances, be omniscient), and establish something vital for the readers to know about early in the story, which can't be revealed any other way. Anything else can be included in the story itself, and reading a prologue full of backstory that I'll just forget about before it's mentioned again feels like a waste of time to me.

Like wordwalker said, a great example of this is the A Game of Thrones prologue. Knowing from the beginning than the threat of Others and wights was genuine made a huge difference to how the reader perceived quite a few events, characters' choices, and all the men in the Night's Watch (who could otherwise just be read for most of the first book as surly, self-important convicts). It lent poignancy and immediacy to small details that would have been set dressing otherwise, and gave Jon Snow's arc a bit more punch. Sadly, the prologues and epilogues of the other ASOIAF books fell short of the significance of Game, and I think Martin kept writing them just because he'd done it in the first book so he might as well carry on with the rest.

 

[Addison]

Here's a problem I've been facing recently. You have so much you want to tell readers about your characters, not all of it is relevant to the current story but it's still interesting. How do you decide what to tell in chunks or bits and what you let readers know by letting them watch the character act?