I was thinking the same thing. I wonder why, if prologues are so hated, are they in almost every successful fantasy series I've read. I bumped this thread to find out how to write a successful prologue but all I see is great dislike of them.
-
Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!
Why are you married to a prologue/epilogue?
- Thread starter Leif GS Notae
- Start date
I was thinking the same thing. I wonder why, if prologues are so hated, are they in almost every successful fantasy series I've read. I bumped this thread to find out how to write a successful prologue but all I see is great dislike of them.
Yeah, this thread was sort of a debate on prologues. If you want advice on writing a good one, might be better to start another thread (with no baggage) 
It could work but it could also again cause confusion. With a fantasy world and a reader's imagination, it's not beyond belief that the reader may expect or suspect that the either the character(s) survived or will be resurrected in some way to impact the story. When the rules of the world aren't well established yet, it can create false expectations. Like it's a zombie knight come back from the grave to avenge his own death story or the character has nine lives.
My thinking is the prologue introduces characters and a conflict and a setting. Chapter 1 has to do the same with new characters a new conflict and maybe a new setting and IMHO slows the story pace down. That's what I mean by a double start.
Another issue about pacing is if there's a slow prologue and fast first chapter1, labelling the prologue chapter 1 will start the book slow. A worse scenario would be a slow prologue and a slow chapter 1. That'll kill it for a lot of readers for sure. Then there's the fast prologue and fast chapter 1, probably the best combination, but I'd still be worried about confusing the reader.
The word prologue makes things clear to the reader that a certain bit of text is outside of the main story and is probably self contained. The reader clearly knows the main story doesn't start until the labelled Chapter 1, so there's IMHO there's a bit of forgiveness if there's a slow prologue.
Last edited:
Phin Scardaw
Troubadour
The Hobbit - the first introduction anyone in the world had to Bilbo and his ilk - was published with no prologue of any kind, and begins only with the line, "In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit." He then goes on to describe both the hole and the creature to be found within it - because at this point no one has any idea what a hobbit is. I think that the prologue at the start of Fellowship is material added as a sort of appendix that happens to appear at the start. It adds some depth to the Shire and gives a good depiction of its populace, but it's hardly necessary to read it to enjoy the story. I usually skip it, as it is not part of the story and to begin there is to start in a dry place. It's like brushing your teeth without putting any toothpaste on your brush.
Prologues are most effective when they act as a teaser, and Epilogues conversely work well as a brief denouement. Any information you wish to convey to the reader, in my opinion, should be relayed to the reader within the meat of the story.
Of course, I say that yet only today I considered adding a single-page preface to the piece I'm working on to give an early introduction to the world, and the political realities of its five Realms as the story opens. I might write one to see if it has any value, but I think I would prefer not to employ such a device.
Christopher Wright
Sage
Before I answer this question, allow me to provide, in detail, all the reasons why I am an authority on this subject and therefore why you should accept everything I'm about to write uncritically:
Now that that's out of the way, on to the matter at hand:
My general rule of thumb for writing is that you should never be "married" to anything: there's no tried and true formula for making a story work -- the only thing you really have to do to make a story work is to get the reader to say "Huh. OK." and keep reading. If the reader accepts it, you win. If the reader doesn't accept it, you lose.
From this perspective, the prologue can be handy. Say you want the bulk of the book to accept a perceived reality shared by all of the characters, and shared uncritically by them, but that shared reality is a lie. You don't want to give away the entire lie, but you want the reader to have a little undercurrent of discomfort, the feeling that something isn't... quite... right... but if you introduced a character who communicated this, it would telegraph the problem too quickly or with too much volume.
Enter the prologue: before the actual story begins, you tell a short story -- think of the prologue as a longish piece of flash fiction -- that presents a character who is operating under a set of assumptions that aren't directly explained, but are obviously different from the assumptions of everyone else in the book... and when the moment comes when the shared worldview comes crashing down, you have the opportunity to tie in the prologue and get the reader to shout "SO THAT'S WHY [noun] [verb] [adjective]!"
Prologues are great for that. If you manage to get the reader to go "Huh. OK." and read on. But you won't always be able to do that. Some people hate prologues so much they'll throw the book away -- if there are enough people like that, then it doesn't matter how useful a device it is, it will keep people from reading your book.
Also, prologues are handy because people set them apart from everything else mentally -- it's considered something "different" from the rest of the book. Which means that, if you have to, you can use it to break conventions in other parts of the book and get away with that while minimizing reader confusion.
(I'm currently using a prologue exactly for this reason -- to solve a problem I don't know how to solve otherwise. It is a kludge, but it works so far.)
Now that that's out of the way, on to the matter at hand:
My general rule of thumb for writing is that you should never be "married" to anything: there's no tried and true formula for making a story work -- the only thing you really have to do to make a story work is to get the reader to say "Huh. OK." and keep reading. If the reader accepts it, you win. If the reader doesn't accept it, you lose.
From this perspective, the prologue can be handy. Say you want the bulk of the book to accept a perceived reality shared by all of the characters, and shared uncritically by them, but that shared reality is a lie. You don't want to give away the entire lie, but you want the reader to have a little undercurrent of discomfort, the feeling that something isn't... quite... right... but if you introduced a character who communicated this, it would telegraph the problem too quickly or with too much volume.
Enter the prologue: before the actual story begins, you tell a short story -- think of the prologue as a longish piece of flash fiction -- that presents a character who is operating under a set of assumptions that aren't directly explained, but are obviously different from the assumptions of everyone else in the book... and when the moment comes when the shared worldview comes crashing down, you have the opportunity to tie in the prologue and get the reader to shout "SO THAT'S WHY [noun] [verb] [adjective]!"
Prologues are great for that. If you manage to get the reader to go "Huh. OK." and read on. But you won't always be able to do that. Some people hate prologues so much they'll throw the book away -- if there are enough people like that, then it doesn't matter how useful a device it is, it will keep people from reading your book.
Also, prologues are handy because people set them apart from everything else mentally -- it's considered something "different" from the rest of the book. Which means that, if you have to, you can use it to break conventions in other parts of the book and get away with that while minimizing reader confusion.
(I'm currently using a prologue exactly for this reason -- to solve a problem I don't know how to solve otherwise. It is a kludge, but it works so far.)
- Thread starter
- #46
Leif GS Notae
Closed Account
Thanks everyone for commenting on this thread, it seems this is a subject people have some passion about.
There are some good prologues, but most are visualized in movies and the like. They also tie into the story in someway (Darth Vader appearing on the rebel ship is a good one, or so I am told).
The reason I know I am turned off by these devils are that they can be either infodumps or they can have nothing to do with the story at all (One line or word that ties into an event 2/3rds of way through the book is pretty weak connecting). Since we are talking about hooking your reader and making them want to read your book, anything rather dull and uninteresting at the beginning is always going to doom you.
So, if you were going to hold a gun to my head and say you'd shoot if I didn't admit there are some good prologues, I would say there are freely. They often happen in movies these days, framing something that will happen in the movie and not filled with a massive infodump about something that doesn't apply.
If you can write a prologue that reads like a movie, I'd relent.
There are some good prologues, but most are visualized in movies and the like. They also tie into the story in someway (Darth Vader appearing on the rebel ship is a good one, or so I am told).
The reason I know I am turned off by these devils are that they can be either infodumps or they can have nothing to do with the story at all (One line or word that ties into an event 2/3rds of way through the book is pretty weak connecting). Since we are talking about hooking your reader and making them want to read your book, anything rather dull and uninteresting at the beginning is always going to doom you.
So, if you were going to hold a gun to my head and say you'd shoot if I didn't admit there are some good prologues, I would say there are freely. They often happen in movies these days, framing something that will happen in the movie and not filled with a massive infodump about something that doesn't apply.
If you can write a prologue that reads like a movie, I'd relent.
Phin Scardaw
Troubadour
The "prologue" that appears at the beginning of Peter Jackson's LotR trilogy is an awful thing and I usually skip it. Infodumping occurs massively here, and the major villain of the story is unfortunately portrayed and described, then shown defeated. Way to deflate any tension one might have hoped for from NOT seeing Sauron, from wondering just who he was and what he's capable of. We also see his orcs and armies defeated, so they won't hold much terror for the audience that continues to watch. And the Ring's powers are given away. There's nothing that kills the mystique and magic of a story faster than just laying it all out on the table in a big, fat InfoDump!
- Thread starter
- #48
Leif GS Notae
Closed Account
True, but I can forgive it somewhat since they never knew if they were going to film the Hobbit or not (at that point, it seemed as though it were a long shot). Now with the Hobbit coming out, it does devalue that scene and make it stick out like a sore thumb.
This is why prologues can be dangerous too, you can write yourself into a quirky hole that devalues other works in the future if it doesn't match up.
Benjamin Clayborne
Auror
I have to disagree. I rather liked the prologue; it condenses three thousand years of Middle-Earth history into a few minutes of screen time, showing what has come before. It gave a really epic feel to the whole thing.
Yes, I realize that part of Sauron's mystique in the books is that we never actually see him (I remember reaching the end of LotR and thinking, "Wait a minute... we never actually met the dude!"), but movies are a visual format. Unless you're doing horror, a villain who's never seen has a lot less impact than one with a scary visage.
Mindfire
Istar
I agree with this.
Ditto.
To me it showed Sauron at the hight of his power. It showed what a bad ass he was and how close he was to victory. The audience got to live out the moment instead of being told it second hand by say... Gandalf as he info dumped his way through a scene.
Phin Scardaw
Troubadour
The power of the One Ring is badly portrayed in this scene. It is meant to allow him to control the minds of those who use the other Great Rings, and to corrupt those under his power. Sauron's power is mainly insidious - that's how he fooled the Elves in the first place. The Ring in this prologue makes it seem as though it just lets Sauron hit people really hard.
In the book, Gandalf is exactly the one who tells Frodo about Sauron and the One Ring. While this scene does contain important exposition, I wouldn't say it qualifies as an "info-dump" because Frodo is learning vital information, and experiencing real fear. As a reader, you learn these things simultaneously, and this allows one to relate to Frodo - for your fear and feelings of uncertainty are mirrored by his.
Some of the scenes in the prologue could have been transferred to this point as flashbacks rather effectively; but I still think that showing Sauron defeated is a bad move.
The prologue in general exists for audience members who are unacquainted with Middle Earth and unaccustomed to fantasy settings. It begins really well - there's Galadriel's VO that comes on and she says, "The world is changed: I feel it in the water, I feel it in the earth, I smell it in the air...Much that once was is lost, for none now live who remember it." She relates about the making of the Great Rings, and the One Ring to rule them all. If the prologue had ended there, it would have been perfectly effective as a prologue; but they went too far and gave away too much. Probably because the producers felt that newcomers to the LotR would be lost if they didn't have everything spelled out for them.
In contrast, The Matrix has a sort of prologue in which Trinity and Cypher discuss the possibility of Neo being "the One" - this is super effective, as it plants the seeds of important thematic ideas but gives away nothing at all. It's an exciting teaser moment that does exactly what a prologue should.
Imagine the movie reworked to have a lame introductory prologue in which Agent Smith drawls on to expound and explain in detail about the War with the Machines, the nature of the Matrix, the One that came before, and what the One now has to do to bring about peace. Totally unnecessary and undermining to the story's magic.
I will always believe that Less is More, and I will gravitate towards books and films which are created by artists who give enough credit to their audiences. I wonder what Tolkien would have thought if he could have seen that prologue...
Lord Darkstorm
Sage
Well, the prolog in the fellowship of the ring movie was actually one of the best parts of the book, but sadly it isn't that dramatic in film so they changed it. But all that information JRR Tolkien put 'in the story' in the original book, and not in a prolog. So, in this instance, while I understand why it was done in the movie, I'll stick with the point that tolkien didn't make it a prolog at all, but worked all that into the story in a way that was enjoyable.
JBryden88
Troubadour
I think a prologue (imo at least) should play two roles:
It should be a story that can stand alone, a short story if you will.
It should set up the main plot the rest of the novel should tell.
It should NOT be just an info dump or unrelated thing.
In my current writing project, Chapter 1 begins with the main character, presumably a coward, fleeing a battle. The prologue introduces viewers to an old war veteran the night before said battle, and his battle with his inner demons (and reasons for fighting.) It establishes what's going on in the world, we get to meet this old man who has plenty of regrets and a desire for payback, and ultimately, is a spring board for the first chapter.
It should be a story that can stand alone, a short story if you will.
It should set up the main plot the rest of the novel should tell.
It should NOT be just an info dump or unrelated thing.
In my current writing project, Chapter 1 begins with the main character, presumably a coward, fleeing a battle. The prologue introduces viewers to an old war veteran the night before said battle, and his battle with his inner demons (and reasons for fighting.) It establishes what's going on in the world, we get to meet this old man who has plenty of regrets and a desire for payback, and ultimately, is a spring board for the first chapter.
Mindfire
Istar
That's a bad comparison. Part of the point of the movie was figuring out what the Matrix was, so of course giving away The Reveal in the beginning would be a bad move. But with LOTR, there's nothing TO give away. There's no mystery. LOTR doesn't have a big "reveal" moment, so there's nothing to spoil. The audience should know what the ring is, who made it, and why it's dangerous, otherwise they simply won't care about the plot. The Prologue to the first film is what establishes Sauron as a threat because its the only time we see him in action. We know how dangerous he is, so we know what the stakes are. If we don't see that, we're not going to really care whether he gets the ring or not. He'll just be another unseen bogeyman. That may work for horror, but for fantasy, not so much. It's kinda like the bit with Vader on Princess Leia's ship in Star Wars. It establishes the threat. If we never saw that, we might not care about the rest of the film. Less is not always more. Sometimes Just Enough is Just Enough. Books and movies are very different mediums. Movies are visual. If the audience doesn't see it, then it doesn't really matter. You can have the audience imagine things for themselves in a book. But in a movie? It'd never work.
Cirias
Acolyte
I think prologues have become a particularly common feature of fantasy fiction. I think the reason a lot of writers use them is because they are a familiar way into a story among the genre. I personally stopped adding prologues to all of my WIPs a couple of years back, when I realised I should have the confidence not to follow the fantasy conventions so rigidly.
Phin Scardaw
Troubadour
There's some saying in theatre about how most of acting is reacting. The audience responds more to a moment of violence, for instance, if the actor who receives the blow is convincing in their reaction of pain. The one who strikes is not as vital to the scene (in theory). This is how the audience's sympathies are manipulated toward an emotive catharsis.
I firmly believe that in this case, Sauron's power could be established MORE effectively than it was in the prologue of the film by using exactly the same means as in the book. Imagine an extended scene in which Gandalf tells Frodo by the side of the fire all about the Ring and how it was made, and used to do terrible things. They might have portrayed a shadowy scene in the flames that Frodo is imagining, in which the Ring is won, and Sauron defeated. Frodo's sheer terror, and the artfulness of a scene like this that was well done would, in my opinion, make me not only more afraid of Sauron than I was in the Prologue (in which I felt no dread of him at all - a moment of movie magic I was truly sad not to experience) and also I would feel a stronger bond with Frodo, because I shared his fear. This exchange between Gandalf and Frodo does exist, but is too brief for my liking.
In contrast to all this, Jackson's faithful introduction and handling of the Balrog is far more effective in deriving fear and excitement from the audience (or from me at least) because we know almost nothing about it, we have no idea what it's capable of - all we know is that Gandalf says to run away from it, and that the Elf is terrified of it (as are the Orcs). All we get is its name, and the knowledge that it's a "demon of the ancient world". We know that it destroyed the Dwarves who'd returned to Moria as well. All of these elements create a monster that is truly terrifying - and that is what makes it such a powerful moment (one of the best in the book for sure, and perhaps Jackson's greatest victory in capturing it onscreen) when Gandalf stands up to the Balrog and apparently defeats it. If it had been Sauron that had challenged Gandalf, the audience would not have felt nearly as excited I believe because everyone present would have been thinking: "Oh, all you have to do is cut the Ring off the dude's finger and he explodes!"
I can go on and on about this, tho...
I'd say that if the films needed a Prologue at all, it would have included Beren and Luthien stealing the Silmarils from Morgoth's crown. Show HIS defeat, and what it cost the Free Peoples - and then from there the prologue narrative can introduce Sauron that takes the place of Morgoth, creating the Rings of Power. But leave Sauron in a placement of power, don't show him defeated! You can insinuate that the Ring was taken from him, and lost, but please oh please don't show the Big Bad Guy explode in your opening scene!!!
A prologue should make you curious and excited to see more, not make you roll your eyes and say, "Thanks for the Cliff Notes - can we get started already?!?!"
The Dark One
Auror
As far as I can tell, the best reason to use a prologue is to tell the readers a secret that the main characters don't yet know. This can add both intrigue and dramatic tension to the unfolding plot as the reader watches the main character being drawn into something that they know (a bit) about but also know that the MC doesn't.
Bernard Cornwell uses prologues to very good effect in the Sharpe series (plus the occasional epilogue). Cornwell is very clever with his epilogues - never quite gives you full closure, which leaves you gagging for the next book.
Bernard Cornwell uses prologues to very good effect in the Sharpe series (plus the occasional epilogue). Cornwell is very clever with his epilogues - never quite gives you full closure, which leaves you gagging for the next book.
I don't understand why you need a prologue to accomplish this.
If you're locked into a strict 3rd Person POV, how else would you do it?
