I am completing the third novel of a series of legal thrillers. My two Beta readers said they forgot what happened in the last two books and wanted to be hit over the head with a reminder, and my planned subtle "catch-up" techniques took too long to understand, so I've decided to use a prologue. Any thoughts on how to handle this? Do I start with, "When we last saw our hero..."? Has anyone used a prologue to remind readers of the events of previous novels? And if so, what is the best way to bring old readers up to speed, and get new readers to pick up the book without feeling like they wasted their money by not buying the first two?
I am very firmly opposed to your beta readers' suggestion. I think that you'd be best off to remember the complaint ("we're confused/we forgot/we need a reminder") and ignore the specific solution suggested.
I have to agree with @ChickenFreak "When we last saw our hero..." reminds me too much of a TV recap on a serialised TV show.
Agreed. You should stick your signposts in the body of the sequels. Even if you have to manufacture a little scene to do so. Is it required that the readers read the previous novels to understand the current ones?
Thanks for the replies. I tried to make each book stand alone, in the even the reader doesn't read the previous one. I have seen some writers use prologues in a series, but I will probably avoid one here and simply "clean up" Chapter 1 so it is easier to bring a reader up to speed without being terribly obvious. Perhaps have two characters engage in a dialogue, something like: "See that guy over there? He was accused of murder last year." "Oh really? What happened?" "Well, it happened like this..."
Be careful if you do this, though. You don't want to end up with an info dump that turns people away ("Yes, yes, I read the previous book, I know all this! Get on with the story already!").
Good plan. Though this: might be a little too cute. If it looks like they're having a conversation purely for the reader's benefit the reader will smell a rat at once. They might not be able to articulate why it feels wrong, but they'll know something is up.
Does the reader even need to know that much? Sometimes complaints can be the mirror image of the issue. Is it possible that the problem isn't that you're giving the past insufficient focus, but instead too much focus? Maybe you need to leap headlong into the new plot so that the reader doesn't have time to muse over the previous book?
This. This is it. I don''t think I need that much catchup, it can simply stand alone with a few references. Thanks, Chicken!
I would suggest having a separate part of your book for this. Because to me a prologue can be used for so many other (better?) purposes that using it to catch people up seems like a waste. You could have a "Previously" at the beginning of your book, separate (obviously) from the rest, and use the prologue for better purposes.
Welcome to the site! The kind of reader who cares about the context in the first place is the kind of reader who would look for the first book after finding out that the one s/he's holding is part of a series. The kind of reader who knows that the book is part of a series, but who starts reading anyway instead of looking for the first one, is by definition the kind of reader who isn't worried about any of that in the first place Maybe your betas should've been keeping better track the first time? EDIT: maybe that was a little too harsh. Would you be interested in hearing my go-to spiel on exposition? (Trust me, I talk about this here a lot )
Honestly, when I read this line, the first thought I had was 'like the blurb?' With the exception of the first in some cases, books as part of a series, even if they are pretty much independent, a book in a series would have a list of the previous titles in that series before the story. The problem with putting too much emphasis on what is already written is that you will lose the readers that have read that. If they wanted to be reminded then they should reread the last two books.
I've read novels where there's a reference to a previous case (yes, it's always cop stories!), and then a note [see: The Case of the Improper Insertion] as to the story in the series in which it occurred. Yeuk! Does it matter that Jack Matthias (your MC) solved a drugs-running case a year ago? Unless you plan to include a sub-plot of the drugs baron interfering with his murder investigation, forget it (1/ Even then, include only as much as is needed. 2/ There's nothing to stop you including the drugs baron interfering even though the drugs bust isn't in your existing series, and then you write the story about the drugs bust, because you've suddenly seen how that would work...and how do you write your "prologue" in that case?). The reader doesn't need to read Jack's CV to believe he's a top-notch detective, he'll understand that from what Jack does now.
I have had that problem before if I'm following a series where the next one is coming out a year or more after. I agree with most others here that a big info dump isn't necessarily the way forward - what I tend to look for is a summary online as a refresher. If you have your own website or blog with a reminder summary then people who need it will find it and people who don't won't have to read it. Of course, that's just what I do personally and I respect that other people would rather be refreshed in a different way.
I've noticed a strong opinion against prologues, here, but I have nothing against them. (Though I've never needed to use one myself, just to be clear.) I've read very good and effective prologues. And the good thing about a prologue is that when you're not interested you can just skip it. Recently I picked up "Prince Lestat" by Anne Rice and there's a quick prologue summarising the story of some characters (the Vampire Chronicles are a series) I read about somewhere in the 90s. And I'm so glad she did that, because I remembered the gist of the story but not every detail. I had even forgotten some names! After all, it was 20 years ago, give me a break! I think it was very smart of her to do that. I'd read it anyway if she hadn't done it, but I prefer that she did. Saved me the trouble of putting the reading aside and try to remember as best as I could, which wouldn't be as good as being reminded. If more attentive readers find it superfluous, then can just skip it. But definitely not with "When we last saw our hero..." And definitely not with the dialogue either. That's the problem with prologues. You have to write them well. Maybe that's why writers are advised against prologues, because the fact is that good prologues are difficult? I don't have advise on how to write a good prologue. I never needed one myself. It has to sound interesting and gripping, and that will depend on the story you're telling. In general, the prologue itself "needs" its distinct voice. Think of it as a character.
I don't think "Prologue" is quite what you need here, as a Prologue doesn't mean a recap of what happened before. (A prologue can be an event or insight told from a different perspective from the main teller of the tale, or a single event that is necessary for the reader to know about.) What you might want to try instead ...and I've seen it done ...is a section entitled "The story so far...(in book one, or whatever)" It will be a synopsis of the main events of the previous book or books, for any reader who wants to catch up, or who hasn't read the previous books. I see no harm in that. It's not necessary to read it. (Any more than an Appendix is mandatory reading.) A Prologue, on the other hand, is a necessary part of the current story (or it shouldn't be there.) It should never be skipped.
