I disagree with both Steerpike and Tenderiser A prologue is called a prologue because it IS essential for the story, but it IS NOT the place to start the story. The story starts at chapter 1. If I as the reader in chapter 1 need to know something which happened immediately before (and which is told in the 'prologue'), then the 'prologue' should be the place to start the story - and should therefore be called chapter 1. Just my five cents.
I take your point. In fact, I'm beta reading a story just now (not from a forum member) that does just that. They've simply called their first chapter a Prologue, and it not only starts the present-day story, but leads directly into the next chapter. There is no discernible break, and I'm trying to come up with some way to tell the writer this should really be Chapter One. I like to operate with this in mind: A prologue contains something the reader must know—or think about—BEFORE they start reading the present-day story. Sometimes knowing something from the past, or knowing something the characters in the present story don't, can be important to how the story is understood. Some prologues contain a pivotal event that happened a long time before the 'present' story starts—maybe when the protagonist was young. Or something that happened generations back that changed the course of personal histories. Or something that happens 'elsewhere,' but affects the story. The common denominator is that the prologue contains something necessary for the reader to know BEFORE they start reading the rest. This is why folks who insist that all prologue events can be worked into the story somewhere have missed the point. It's also why people who think prologues are optional and can be skipped without detriment, are actually wrong. Skip them at your peril. You'll be playing catch-up for the rest of the story. There are many ways to tell stories. Prologues offer one way to approach them.
A lot of these are reasons not to have a prologue. Especially the "essential" bit. Lots of readers skip prologues. I often do. There's no peril for me. If I can't understand the book well without it I'll just never buy another of that author's books, which is actually good for me if you know my book buying habits and the size of my to-read pile. I think it was Jane Friedman who said prologues can be thrown in the trash. The point she was making is that most of them are very poorly done. The vast majority of writers who think they need one are wrong and weaken their book. I've even seen agents and editors suggest not sending in your prologue, even if you have it, if you're asked to submit the first few chapters of a manuscript (which would be a mistake of the prologue was critical to understanding the story). If you truly have a necessary prologue it should be short and engaging so not as many people will skip over it, and it should truly be necessary. I suspect upwards of 98% of writers who think they have an indispensable prologue are dead wrong.
These are reasons to learn when to have a prologue, and when not to. As I said, there are many ways to tell a story. Prologues are one of them. Whatever method you choose to tell a story, you need to learn to write it well. We've had this discussion umpteen times on this forum, and I have no intention of carrying it on. I've said my piece. People are free to disagree. I'm away.
Yeah, we've had the discussion I was more interested in the "at the peril of the reader" sentiment. To my mind, nothing is at the reader's peril. Every decision is at the peril of the author, because I've got more to read than I can finish in a lifetime. No matter what author's books we're talking about, I don't need them. I like many of them, sure, but if I didn't have them I'd have the next one. That's one reason I never feel compelled to finish a book. If one starts off good but sucks in the middle, I'll throw it in the trash and start the next one. Too much to read!
I'll pretty much always read a prologue. I just won't give it any special dispensation for being boring or backstory or anything else, and if the story makes a sudden turn and drags me out of something that absorbed me in the prologue, I won't regard, "But that was the prologue! You can't judge from the prologue!" as any excuse. The prologue is required to be just as engaging as the rest of the story, and any bumpy effect in going from prologue to story is the writer's job to smooth out, not the reader's job to tolerate. I'm not saying that anybody said anything different. I'm just stating my position on prologues.
I think this is a difficult question for everyone who has a story with a significant backstory. The question to ask is, if the reader skips it, because many readers do, how will that impact their experience with the book? Brainiac readers who need to know all the whys and wherefores will read the prologue. Impatient readers will jump to chapter 1. I've decided the prologue is the place to give those brainiac readers, "the inside scoop." They are going to know something from the outset that everyone who starts in chapter 1 won't know. However, I believe the readers who start in chapter 1 are going to get the greatest enjoyment out of the book because they will be held in suspense, only knowing what the MC knows, and getting that information only when the MC is made aware of it. So yes, I have a prologue told from the POV of a minor character and recounts events of importance that happened long before my MC was born. (Think civil war, dissolution of households, an exiled king, wrath of the gods, etc.) This alerts the reader as to "how we ended up in this mess." All the information in the prologue is dished out, piece meal, throughout the book, so the MC will eventually know everything. If I had it my way, there wouldn't be a prologue, but it seems to be what the readers want, so it's there. I didn't include a prologue when I wrote the book, it was something that I went back and added after multiple impatient pleas.
I was looking at R.R. Martin's work. His prologues lead into Ch. 1. J.K. Rowling's Ch. 1 in book 1 was essentially a prologue (and a rather boring one at that, I'm surprised so many ppl made it to ch. 2 in her first book? I didn't until much later when it became a big hit). Rowling's 7th book also started with a prologue showing the antagonists. Has anyone actually polled readers or researched to see how many of them actually skip prologues? I think short prologues with a strong first line would not likely be skipped and would add to the story. A recent self-published successful author, A.G. Riddle, starts with large prologues. But I'd only use a prologue if 1) the setting was during a different time or 2) it's from the view of a different character, like an antagonist. Thanks for enlightening me tho. I see it doesn't necessarily have to make an impact right in Ch. 1.
Did they specifically want a prologue, or did they want information that you chose to provide in a prologue? Those are IMO two different things.
They wanted a prologue. All the information in the prologue is in the book and I start doling it out at the end of chapter 1. But, the standard formula for chapter 1 is the hero at home, then something happens to start the story. The simple farm boy/boy under the stares/intergalactic hitchhiker/whatever, does not know s/he is the "choose one" in chapter 1. That just gives the story away to fast. BUT, you can put prophesies/forgotten linages/the fact that he or she is actually an alien/etc in a prologue to pacify the reader who doesn't want to wait for the farm boy/seving wench/local orphan/whatever to figure out they are destined for greatness.
Woo boy, the prologue debate. lol, only one worse is the dreaded italics for thoughts! I am gonna vote, prologues don't and shouldn't interact early on, for the reasons Lifeline said. Personally, what I think is much more interesting isn't what a prologue is, or how it can be done but when it needs to be done. Everyone is so quick to state why it is the destruction of story telling, or why in such a case it was just ruining a book or story. And thats fair, but its also common. One defending the use of a prologue as a result is more much interesting to me. But as Jannert said. There is so many ways to tell a story and no way can these techniques be considered bad or wrong, even if its reflects a style we don't like. At best we can say that, generally a story isn't liked or that the basic elements of a story are not complimentary to each other making the story telling techniques used poorly.
See, my view is that the reader knows that they...want. They feel a want. But the fact that they want X doesn't necessarily mean that they should be fed X. It may be that Y will make them happy and satisfied, that if they'd had Y they never would have thought to want X. I'm persisting here because I think that it's entirely possible, in fact likely, that if you can figure out what Y is, your book will be much better than giving them that X prologue. I think that pointing to the big shiny thing right away is very, very often a bad idea.
This reminds me of a movie actually, which to the point I think doesnt matter. Entertaining media! Me and a friend watched it together and we were discussing it after critiquing it. And the end was very predictable, so it lost a lot of points. My friend pointed out to me, the only reason the end was predictable was because the post spoiled it. And I thought about it. He was right! But the fact of the matter is, they made the poster and the poster they made spoiled it and that ruined the ending. So, while we writers may be BURSTING at the seems to give people our ideas(I know I am) a viewer isn't in the same boat and you can literally ruin a good story by giving the good detail at the wrong time.
That's one reason I don't read the back of books. Prologues are not impossible to do well, but they're often a crutch (author can't figure out how to work information into a story effectively so she dumps it into a prologue) and/or uneccesary (author spent a lot of time coming up with tons of backstory and even though we don't need it he's damn well going to give it to us anyway). I just want to get to the story. When an author puts in a prologue there's a good chance the author is putting in stuff he wants me to read before I get to the start of the story. The author knows, at least on some level, that it's before the start of the story, which is why it is in a prologue. It's a common enough mistake generally to start a story in the wrong place. Prologues often worsen that.
I'm not entirely sure what we're agreeing/disagreeing on - I think we're making separate points - but all I know is I hate it when prologues get me invested in one character/situation and then that all disappears and Chapter 1 shoves me in with an entirely separate character/situation that appears to have no link to it. If you're going to make me start all over again then show me why I just bothered reading the first 2,000 words (or whatever) or I'm going to start your real story feeling a bit pissed off. It's like a story I beta'ed recently that started with a really dramatic, hook-y scene, and then revealed that I was watching a dramatic, hook-y play that the MC was acting in. I felt tricked, and I don't want to feel like an author is sucking me in with a false premise. I agree that it's best to choose the right place to start a story and then call that Chapter 1, but that's not what the OP asked which is why I think we're responding to different things.
LOL! I don't disagree. Though, how can ya not read the back of the book! I mean, ya need something to dive in don't ya? lol. I agree you don't want to give too much away either. Personally, the crime of the prologue to me has nothing to do with the prologue, it is that sense of "false start" which is actually why I would probably like the idea of a proloque, in the sense of an author being like. "this ISN"T the start but important information" would be a lot easier to swallow then spending chapter 01 with a character I like and then BAMN GONE! That is just like such an instant fail to a book for me. Though, now I am super curious, in response to this thread. I started my own proloque thread. With 2 main goals. - People to place a situation that needs a prologue just to give the pro side of prologue some needed love. - People to critique if the other posters did that. I wonder if you would like the situation I put up. Shameless advertisment! (hope ya don;t mind opening poster) https://www.writingforums.org/threads/prologue-because-the-italic-flame-war-is-too-hot.150418/
No, they wanted a prologue. Imagine the following conversation: Spoiler: Tedious Conversation Reader: Why haven't you told me what the point their journey is? Author: Because the MC doesn't know where they are going or why. He's a drunkard who signed on to escape some unpleasantness after being caught with his trousers down in a compromising situation with his boss's wife. He'll figure out 'where' in chapter 2, once he's aboard, sober, and starts talking to the other crew members. Reader: But I need to know WHY!!! Author: Foreshadowing snippets of the captains sanity and dark secrets hidden in his past will start to surface in chapter 3. Then you will know why. Reader: Then why aren't you writing from the POV of the captain? Author: Because the crew is going to mutiny in chapter 5 and the MC is the leader of that mutiny. Reader: Why are they going to mutiny? Author: Because in chapter 4 they realize that the captain is insane. Reader: But why is he insane? Author: Because of those things I mention in chapter 3. Reader: Well what are they? Author: You'll know when you read chapter 3. Reader: But, I need to know NOW!!! Author: F*ck it! (Then writes prologue from POV of first-mate about nasty voyage a decade prior that left the captain mentally and emotional compromised, and does not give away the mutiny or all interesting bits that follow.)
My point is that they WANT a prologue, but that may not be what would really make the book more satisfying for them. I might be eating a dessert and THINK that I want more sugar, or lemon juice, but what would really make that dessert satisfying is a little bit of salt, to contrast with the sweet and sour that's already there. I realize that doing that would require not only a partial rewrite of the book, but a whole new set of beta readers.
"A lot of readers skip the prologue." Good. My current WIP is written with this in mind. If they skip the prologue they "become" a certain character. If they read the prologue they become another character.
Heh. I had that same problem--the dumping information about the past into the prologue--with one of my manuscripts. I thought it was important that the readers actually see two main characters making a pact as youngsters as opposed to them referencing that event in the main text. In my defense, I was pretty young when I wrote that first draft.
Click 'Reply' instead of +Quote. If you want to multi-quote, click +Quote next to all the posts you want, then scroll to the reply box and hit the 'Insert Quotes' button.
