Who hates Prologues?

[Russ]

>I’ve never understood why some readers have a problem with prologues.

I think it happens like this, Incanus. A great many prologues are poorly done. So are Chapter Ones or Chapter Twelves. But "prologue" has a specific name. It's harder to claim nobody needs a Chapter Twelve. In other words, people are reacting to bad writing. "Prologue" is easy to identify and is encountered more often than Chapter Twelves.

The other part is this. People who teach writing, who write books that teach writing, who write blogs about writing about writing, need "lessons" they can offer. The bloggers and tweeters, in particular, need something brief (if not always pithy). Something that nestles comfortably into bullet points.

Enter: Avoid Prologues

Brief enough even to fit on a Powerpoint slide. Credibility is gained because so much evidence can be presented. There are no end of awful Prologues ready to hand for the aspiring workshop teacher. The advice gets repeated and amplified in the IEO (Internet Echo Chamber) et voilà, we have collective wisdom.

It's so easily modified. It should read "Avoid Bad Prologues". But, of course, that throws an intolerable burden onto the shoulders of the teacher/adviser/critic, for now they need to be able to say how to write well.

Well, I've finished off my bottle of cynicism. Tasty as always, though a little bitter.

That is some serious speculative cynicism.

Let me offer a different perspective, based less on speculation.

Editors and agents see tons of books and see huge numbers of bad or useless prologues. They conclude that the need for a prologue is rare, (while indeed the need for a Chapter One, or a denouement or a climax is universal) and that they are beyond the means of most beginning writers to execute, so they, in response to the massive number of times they are asked questions by unpublished writers every time they show their face in public that most prologues are bad and most books don't need them or shouldn't have them.

They also see new data these days that convinces them that people's attention spans are getting shorter and that many people who start books don't finish them. They believe that faster paced books are more popular. They believe, and learn, that prologues that engage in character development or world building as their primary purpose make them less palatable to the modern book consumer.

I have no doubt that there is a body of people who teach more about writing than do the craft, but there is also a body of people who are very good, thoughtful, well educated, successful writers who love and understand both the craft and the market who suggest the situations where a prologue is really needed are quite rare.

One is perfectly free to ignore their thoughts and engage in speculation about the Internet Echo Chamber.

Personally I find your cynicism tastes kind of watery, or lacking in substance. Heaven forbid that "Credibility is gained because so much evidence is presented." Perhaps we should flee from evidence to emancipate ourselves.

 

[MAndreas]

I skip them. Sorry, I really don't like them. But I do agree it's a personal choice and for every person like me, there are folks who love them. I think it also depends as to why they are there. Some bias against them in the publishing world is due to authors using them as a "pre-info-dump" instead of finding a way to work that backstory into the book.

That being said, if you like them, and your story has one--stick to your guns. Just my 2 cents.

 

[KBA]

I find myself always reading them, but feeling impatient if they're long. I want to jump right into the main story, and if I page through the prologue and see it's many pages long, I'll still read it, but with a slight twinge of wanting it to hurry up.

 

[SeverinR]

I usually start reading the first page with words. Usually I will figure out its a prologue fairly quickly and if it doesn't grab me as the first line, paragraph or page should, I skip it.
I don't remember ever having to go back and read a skipped Prologue once I was into the story. So it wasn't needed and probably didn't add to the story.

I have read some prologues that grabbed my attention. No matter what classification page one of the story starts, it needs to grip the reader.
BTW if I actually notice a prologue I usually skip it, because most of the ones I have read are boring.

 

[Azora]

I think they should be avoided not because they're bad, but because a lot of people skip them, so if you put important info in your prolouge and the reader skips it, then the story wont make much sense to them. That's why I don't write prologues.

 

[Malik]

I think they should be avoided not because they're bad, but because a lot of people skip them, so if you put important info in your prolouge and the reader skips it, then the story wont make much sense to them. That's why I don't write prologues.

If the reader skips your prologue and they find themselves lost a few pages in, then your prologue is obviously necessary, which means you've done it correctly.

If the reader can skip your prologue and still know what's going on, your prologue is unnecessary. Kill it with fire.

 

[Steerpike]

I've seen writing advice on a number of occasions saying not to put essential information in the prologue because many readers do skip them and if they're lost they may or the book down and be less likely to buy your other books. Which leads to the question of why have one. I don't know that I've read many that are essential to the book, however.

 

[Chessie]

As much as I hate George R.R. Martin, his prologue in GOT is one I actually enjoyed. It was done right imo. When prologues are engaging and make me wonder more about what's to come, then I'll read them. It is kind of sad that they're getting skipped more often than not now; seems like some of the old storytelling techniques (like prologues, omniscient, writing without rules) just keep getting cut for lifeless prose.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

While I'm agnostic on prologues, this on it's face is simplistic and wrong. If a reader skips your prologue and gets lost, it might just mean chapter one was written on the piss-poor side, LOL. Just because the info in the prologue is necessary doesn't mean it was necessary to be in a prologue. This sort of black and white judgment of prologues if off base. Prologues can serve more than one purpose.

If the reader skips your prologue and they find themselves lost a few pages in, then your prologue is obviously necessary, which means you've done it correctly.

If the reader can skip your prologue and still know what's going on, your prologue is unnecessary. Kill it with fire.

 

[Demesnedenoir]

And this demonstrates a different form of prologue... the chapter that is called a prologue for a variety of tactical reasons. This is the easiest form of prologue to justify in modern publishing, IMO.

As much as I hate George R.R. Martin, his prologue in GOT is one I actually enjoyed. It was done right imo. When prologues are engaging and make me wonder more about what's to come, then I'll read them. It is kind of sad that they're getting skipped more often than not now; seems like some of the old storytelling techniques (like prologues, omniscient, writing without rules) just keep getting cut for lifeless prose.

 

[DragonOfTheAerie]

I skip prologues if they don't grab me in the way that a story beginning should. If they're just a bunch of extraneous backstory stuff that I can't understand or care about yet. I'll read a good prologue but sadly most are infodumps, a pointless action scene to serve as a hook that distracts from the terrible, uninspiring beginning, or backstory I can't understand until after I've finished the book. I rarely miss them.

I once read an entire book series (30+ books, each with a prologue) and skipped every prologue and never got confused or missed anything. I wonder sometimes what was in all those prologues, but it can't have been too important.