Why are you married to a prologue/epilogue?

[Steerpike]

You've just said that my examples were instances where prologues weren't necessary but then contradicted yourself by giving examples of why they could could be necessary in those instances and that confuses me.

I think those are instances where Chilari is saying you "may" use them, but again not where they are necessary. I agree. My preference would be not to use a prologue even in those instances, though I think those examples are better than some of the other reasons people employ prologues. I don't think Chilari said they could be "necessary" in those circumstances, but instead indicated an understanding of why someone might use them.

 

[Leif GS Notae]

Now, I went through and looked at some more entries today and it seems there are more prologues cropping up. This is not a blight or some eternal damnation, but it seems that people have a determination/fascination with these things.

Do we feel it is due to publishing houses thrusting this upon the masses? I had a chat with two "professional readers" with contacts and they echoed the sentiment.

Is it because these seem natural? Remember, fiction writing (other than tightening up prose and structure a bit) hasn't changed in some time. We are still holding onto some residuals from 70+ years or so.

I don't think it is an "education" thing, where we have to teach it to writers. Everyone has an opinion on it, as I can see in this thread (thank the gods there isn't blood), so is this a reflection on the reader, the writer, or the industry?

I'm really curious as to what everyone thinks. I don't know if this is covered in another thread. If it is, I'll ask this one be locked if it has run its course.

 

[Chilari]

I think those are instances where Chilari is saying you "may" use them, but again not where they are necessary. I agree. My preference would be not to use a prologue even in those instances, though I think those examples are better than some of the other reasons people employ prologues. I don't think Chilari said they could be "necessary" in those circumstances, but instead indicated an understanding of why someone might use them.

Yes, this is precisely what I mean. I don't think any prologue is necessary, but I can see how writers find them useful for particular scenarios when they want to convey information in a particular manner.

 

[Ankari]

Then when is a prologue a tool that should be used? I ask this sincerely because I was about to start my story and begin with a prologue.

From what I've seen from successful authors they use a prologue to:

1) Give the reader some information in the past. Robert Jordan Wheel of Time.

2) Introduce an antagonist or evil. George RR Martin ASOIAF

3) Reveal information that will later involve the main character(s). Steven Erickson Malazan Book of the Fallen.

Are these acceptable reasons for a prologue?

 

[Shockley]

I'm not anti-prologue, but Jordan's prologues really turned me off to WoT. That's one of the reasons I was never able to get into it.

 

[Lord Darkstorm]

Then when is a prologue a tool that should be used? I ask this sincerely because I was about to start my story and begin with a prologue.

From what I've seen from successful authors they use a prologue to:

1) Give the reader some information in the past. Robert Jordan Wheel of Time.

2) Introduce an antagonist or evil. George RR Martin ASOIAF

3) Reveal information that will later involve the main character(s). Steven Erickson Malazan Book of the Fallen.

Are these acceptable reasons for a prologue?

If you are an established author with a solid reputation, sure. I personally found the prologs to the wheel of time books to be rather stupid since they may have well been chapter 1 and 2 and 3 and..well, however many chapters he could have made in the excessively long prologs, and epilogs. And the very beginning prolog of book one, while it makes sense a few books later, was difficult to read through.

The one place a prolog would make sense for most people (and in the wheel of time I think of it as one long story broken into many parts so a prolog is a bit pointless) is when there are people not really main characters of the story at the beginning of one of the books that are doing things that might have impact later. That is more what a prolog is for, the part of the story that isn't really in the main story. Characters that are not long term characters but have some importance to the story, before or at a far later time (although the later should be more built into the story itself).

Prologs are not evil, but so often unnecessary or bad that the word brings loathing to most of us.

 

[Leif GS Notae]

Then when is a prologue a tool that should be used? I ask this sincerely because I was about to start my story and begin with a prologue.

From what I've seen from successful authors they use a prologue to:

1) Give the reader some information in the past. Robert Jordan Wheel of Time.

2) Introduce an antagonist or evil. George RR Martin ASOIAF

3) Reveal information that will later involve the main character(s). Steven Erickson Malazan Book of the Fallen.

Are these acceptable reasons for a prologue?

For me, from what I see, they are great to tie in the second book of a series into the first (and following books in with each other). I am a firm believer that eventually, your story will use your prologue as a premise to inspire or push your protagonist to greater things.

Did ASoFaI need the prologue? Nope. This was easily adapted later on and took some of the power away from the reveal.

Never read Jordan, never care to. An info dump is an info dump.

To each their own, but I believe you are doing your story, your characters, and your readers a disservice by not allowing them to connect the same way your characters would to the story. It gives a bit more edge and makes your story memorable.

 

[Ankari]

As I understand it, its acceptable to use a prologue in any book after the first? The only place a prologue is not acceptable is in the first book. Is that right?

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

As I understand it, its acceptable to use a prologue in any book after the first? The only place a prologue is not acceptable is in the first book. Is that right?

That's one opinion. Remember, there is no right or wrong in any of this.

A Game of Thrones uses a prologue, and it's quite an effective one. By the time I got to the end of it, I thought, "Holy crap, that was terrifying," and I couldn't wait to find out more. I was actually a bit disappointed that it's so long before we see the White Walkers again. (Of course, the rest of the story more than made up for it.)

Martin uses the prologue as a way to give us a POV character who is not used again (and usually dies at the end of the prologue), which allows him to give different perspectives on events that you can't get with the main characters. (To be fair, he ends up doing some one- or two-shot POV characters in the later books, which I don't really like. You go through 2/3 of the book and then suddenly a new POV character is introduced, which is kind of cheap. I actually adapted this in a way I like better for my own novel; the main story is from 4 POV characters in alternating chapters, but there are three "interlude" chapters for POV characters who only get a POV once–but it's explicitly an interlude, rather than just a one-shot who might or might not show up again. I'm big on formal structure.)

It's also a clever way to get the reader into the groove of the story without having to spend the most valuable resource–time with characters we like–before the reader is ready for it. By the time you get to book 2 or 3, the prologue is with characters we've either never seen or barely seen; once it's over, we're sucked into the world again, and ready to spend quality time with people we like (Arya, Tyrion, etc.).

This isn't to say that the prologues are perfect; Martin has a tendency to sort of throw you into the deep end and slowly give you the details you need to understand what's going on. I personally prefer to be eased in a bit more slowly. But I still enjoy them.

And unlike others here, I have never really had the experience that prologues in novels are usually, generally, or even frequently bad. To me, a prologue is a way to introduce me to the world of the novel, and if it's well-written, it's just as effective as a cold open on a TV show, or the pre-credits sequence in a James Bond movie, or even the first scenes of Star Wars. The idea that otherwise good novels usually have lousy prologues is preposterous.

 

[Devor]

I've seen readers say, "where is this going?" Throw in a prologue featuring the bad guy and that goes away.

However, I do object to the word "prologue" being printed on the chapter unless it is genuinely a lesser, info-dump type of chapter. If a prologue is worth having, it should be part of the story. I typically say prologue but only mean an opening chapter told from a different POV than the MC.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

However, I do object to the word "prologue" being printed on the chapter unless it is genuinely a lesser, info-dump type of chapter. If a prologue is worth having, it should be part of the story.

What exactly do you mean by "part of the story"? It's in the book; it is part of the story. Why does the label at the top of the first page so drastically change how you feel about it? How does putting "Prologue" at the beginning suddenly make it not part of the story? (I'm not trying to be hostile here; I'm really looking to establish some kind of formal structure in this debate.)

As an exercise, consider these two cases:

A. 30-chapter novel, labeled "Chapter 1" through "Chapter 30"
B. 30-chapter novel. The first chapter is labeled "Prologue" and the other 29 chapters are labeled "Chapter 1" through "Chapter 29".

And assume there are literally no other differences between the two cases. The text in every chapter is exactly the same from case A to case B (except that case B's "Chapter 1" is case A's "Chapter 2").

What's the difference aside from the labels at the top of the pages?

 

[Devor]

What's the difference aside from the labels at the top of the pages?

I think I misstated a little.

I only mean that people commonly associate prologues with info-dumps or short scenes that don't build into the story. I know a number of people who tell me they skip prologues - or else that they read a prologue, and that I should skip it - and I've seen a lot of prologues which, while they might be "relevant," and may be necessary from a story-telling perspective, they aren't always necessary from a plot-perspective. Evil people stand around and talk vaguely about killing everyone? Eerie, creepy, foreshadowing, but not specific enough to be unskippable. People losing a fight with some unknown undead-ish shadowy figures? Creepy, fun, but well, all of those characters did end up dead.

The lack of necessary plot elements, I think, sometimes causes readers not to realize that it's necessary from other story-telling perspectives.

I said that I "object" to using the word prologue most of the time, and object was really the wrong word. It's not like a moral thing, and I'm not grumbling standards, people, standards! I only mean, masking that it's a prologue a little bit might help it to be better received by your readers. The word has connotations, and it might be worth trying to slip by their preconceptions.

 

[Mindfire]

I only mean that people commonly associate prologues with info-dumps or short scenes that don't build into the story.

This is true. Prologues are usually boring. I used to lump the Prologue together with the Foreword into the category of "author rambling on things I don't care about" and skip to the "real" story. In fact, some prologues are forewords, just with a different header, because they're written from the author's perspective and aren't part of the narrative at all. Those are the worst kind of prologues IMO.

But anyway, using a "prologue" is going to instantly conjure a negative connotation with most readers and they're going to skip it. If the prologue really is important, why not call it chapter one? That way people will actually pay attention to it and not think of it as just "the foreword, part two."

 

[Penpilot]

Labelling a prologue as chapter 1 can cause issues too. The reader will probably mistake the prologue characters for the main characters and if they don't show up again, the reader will get confused. They will probably constantly wonder what happened to those characters in chapter one they liked so much, and if they don't come back, they may put down the book.

Also this can cause a problem with pacing. The book will in essence start twice. One start for the prologue and then another one for the real story. IMHO it's generally bad idea to try to trick readers. If it's a true prologue call it a prologue.

 

[Mindfire]

Labelling a prologue as chapter 1 can cause issues too. The reader will probably mistake the prologue characters for the main characters and if they don't show up again, the reader will get confused. They will probably constantly wonder what happened to those characters in chapter one they liked so much, and if they don't come back, they may put down the book.

Also this can cause a problem with pacing. The book will in essence start twice. One start for the prologue and then another one for the real story. IMHO it's generally bad idea to try to trick readers. If it's a true prologue call it a prologue.

What if you just kill all the intro characters? That would solve the problem.

 

[The Din]

I used to skip prologues, when I was ten. I really can't see the majority of readers doing this. As for labeling it chapter one, I think penpilot has hit the nail right on the head, so I won't bother repeating it. I will add that doing so implies a deep disrespect to the reader and an air of insecurity to the writer. Good writing's good writing, whatever its called. There's no reason a prologue can't be written just as well as any other chapter, should the story require/benefit from one.

 

[Devor]

Labelling a prologue as chapter 1 can cause issues too. The reader will probably mistake the prologue characters for the main characters and if they don't show up again, the reader will get confused. They will probably constantly wonder what happened to those characters in chapter one they liked so much, and if they don't come back, they may put down the book.

Also this can cause a problem with pacing. The book will in essence start twice. One start for the prologue and then another one for the real story. IMHO it's generally bad idea to try to trick readers. If it's a true prologue call it a prologue.

That's a good point, but it depends a lot on the prologue, it's relevance, and the value of its content. I disagree, though, that it means the book is "starting twice." Your second opening, as it were, is addressing an already-hooked reader. And even insomuch as it is starting twice, certainly the word "Prologue" isn't going to change that effect.

Lastly, the line between Prologue and Chapter is so remarkably thin, and the content of early chapters so frequently unpredictable, that I really don't think a reader would feel tricked.

There are books, for instance, with multiple prologues, and it'd be crazy to try and label them all as such. And then there's books like Harry Potter, which does open with an unlabeled prologue, in that it starts from a different POV, but it is entirely unskippable.

 

[Mindfire]

In short, a badly done prologue is like unto an annoying opening cutscene in a video game. I can't think of a single prologue that a story couldn't have done without.

 

[Benjamin Clayborne]

But anyway, using a "prologue" is going to instantly conjure a negative connotation with most readers and they're going to skip it.

I wonder if there's any hard data on those points. I imagine someone must have done some research, although I really can't imagine that the popular perception of fantasy novel prologues has been the subject of much academic study...

 

[Steerpike]

I used to skip prologues, when I was ten. I really can't see the majority of readers doing this. As for labeling it chapter one, I think penpilot has hit the nail right on the head, so I won't bother repeating it. I will add that doing so implies a deep disrespect to the reader and an air of insecurity to the writer. Good writing's good writing, whatever its called. There's no reason a prologue can't be written just as well as any other chapter, should the story require/benefit from one.

Problem is they don't generally benefit. I have no problems skipping a prologue if it isn't interesting. More likely, I simply won't buy the book in the first place. I feel like prologues generally start before the story, and the writer knows it or else wouldn't feel compelled to call it prologue. Start with the story, that's my advice.