I suppose that can be said about any kind of advice that doesn't come from somebody who is officially an expert. It's just an opinion. However, if the person giving the 'advice' can also give reasons why they hold this opinion, then it's not really harmful. It will either hit or miss. The only 'harmful' advice regarding prologues is saying you can't get published if you write one. That's patently untrue—as all the cited examples of recently published books with prologues prove.
Experiences vary and while I expect simple plots to begin in 'media res', many rich and truly wonderful works practically require a prologue after a certain point. The problem is identifying what is essential to follow the story versus the material which can be shown piecemeal by exposition. Prologues should not be replacements for chapter 1 or a way to spill out your world-building, they are contextual foundations to understand mindsets, history or the way of the world in advance. They ground the reader in the unreal so that they will not object to vastly different (and often culturally bizarre) settings. If humanity has been subservient to lizardmen for hundreds of years, explaining in advance may be a necessity.
Yes. It may not be a necessity (there are other ways to get the idea across) but a prologue may be the way the author has chosen to do it. I always say 'trust the author.' By that, I mean give the author a chance. Don't just decide ahead of time that their method won't work.
I think all advice is potentially harmful. It's up to the person asking for the advice to evaluate its worth. People can share their opinions, but there are no black-and-white answers to much of anything about writing, once you get beyond the very basics.
Sounds like the Buhhda when he said "Be a lamp unto yourself." Basically meaning to guide yourself through life. Be your own teacher. He gave them advice in what worked for him but also made it clear that what worked for him may not work for others.
Understood. With that said, the coin has two sides because the question carries with it the flip side of: Why do people pine so for an answer to this particular question? Everyone chewing this question endlessly, like cud - down again, up again - is trying to find a "correct answer" that settles the matter once and for all. There is no such answer because the way the question is typically framed is faulty. The paradigm is almost answering to a mixed epistemology error. If someone doesn't like a Jackson Pollock or a Rothko, they aren't wrong, they just don't like them. I don't like Pollock, but I love Rothko. Why? Because I get one and not the other. That's it. If I to try to frame my reasoning into a logical discourse, you will start to poke holes in the logic very quickly, but it's not because my logic is faulty, it's because the mistake was in trying to use logic in the first place to explain why, when the only answer that means anything is: I get Rothko; I don't get Pollock. And that's all there is to it. End of. I get stories that begin with story; I don't get stories that begin with a little prep-class beforehand. End of. Trying to argue me over to a different stance is the same as judging me for my taste in literature, and the immediate response to being judged is what makes the usual tone of threads about this topic pretty predictable. People who don't dig prologues feel judged as "bad readers" for turning away what may prove to be a good story later on. People who do dig prologues feel judged as "bad readers/writers" because the argument against prologues is usually to the tune of it being some flavor of patch or afterthought to fix something missing in the framework of the story that should have been written better. People like me who feel that the question is broken feel dismissed because there is clearly a deep investment on the part of some that there must be a right answer, and they feel offended at being told the question is broken. It's all so tedious.
In any matter of opinion rather than scientific fact, there will always be disagreement. IMO, taking a position isn't potentially harmful, it's taking a position. A writer should be able to accept that other writers are not an un-erring font of wisdom--and if that didn't occur to a new writer before they got here, the constant disagreement in almost every thread should tell them. IMO, only when dealing with fairly small children is it desirable to ensure a constant message. Everyone else benefits from the opportunit to hear and select from all views.
Yeah, because I only see them when I get to the end of the book and it's too late not to have bought it
@Wreybies I don't think arguing with someone is the same as judging them. I argue with people a lot because I am interested in getting down to something unbiased--the truth. I think that, as with religion, I hate it when someone is telling me something for a long time, presenting it as fact, and then I end up finding out it's opinion.
I think that it only depends on how you use it and why. There are many different styles and genres of novels that use it and for many different reasons. Here are some reasons: 1) In a complex sci-fi story with a post apocalyptic environment or a parallel universe story, to give a quick debriefing in the main points of the scene, either it is the environment either the politics either whatever will be a useful explanation that will pay-off later on in your story. Some universes are way too complex in order to jump right into them and without the prologue premise can lead up to the readers' confusion, meaning that he might not have a clear image right away of how the scenery looks or the social circumstances, and by trying to imagine too much and fill up the gaps himself (which in this case are important ones) he might feel like guessing too much. How does he know that later on the explanation of these main points will be similar as what he primary thought? If he fell miles away in guessing after page 20, it means that he has to reconstruct in his mind the whole story of the 20 pages by scratch. Most likely he will not like that. So if you write a brief explanation of what had happened before (lets say, in The Snow Piercer in the intro credits, it gave us the whole basic history from "then" to "now" and how and why everybody ended up in a single train. In only a few seconds! It was masterful) and why things ended up this way, but your main plot isn't just about that, then I find no other way to pull something like this off. You are already in the future. The past is only common knowledge. Oh, I know! Another triumphant example. Maybe you've heard of Star Wars? 2) In an epic story, either it's fantasy fiction either it's based on fact either it's a mix of things either it's sci-fi either... You get the point. A story that deals with complex strategy. Nations, clans, dynasties, feuds, assassins, spies, etc. Epic is epic. You have to know right away who is with who or against who. If you don't, this means that you are missing the whole story. Some writers of the genre often draw maps to give you a blue print of the war zones which I find very wise. They keep the history short and to the point, because their main plot is not about that (another boring history book with names and chronologies and topologies). I am not a fan of "epic-ness" in reading (I find Tolkien a bit tiresome to be honest) so apart from L.O.T.R. (which I never finished) the only books I've read and enjoyed is Lian Hearns' Tales of Otori. In her second book the prologue is just a page long in which we get a brief summary of what happened in the previous book and we are told of the main things that happened in between a year because that's where the writer chooses to continue her story. Simple, fast, fascinating! + the lovely map. 3) In a story that has an irregular timeline. For some reason the writer wants to start from the middle or even from the end of the story. In Anne Rices' The Vampire Lestat, the vampire himself attempts to explain to us the reason he wants to publish his story which turns out to be very relevant the whole story through, especially towards the end of it. She really knew what she was doing. I think that it's the best prologue I've ever read although it contains all of the todays no-nos' everybody is talking about. It is so well written that nothing about it feels off or deceitful. Lestat is a narcissistic prick. He admits it and we love him for that. After the prologue he takes us from point A to B of his life, even throughout the rest of the books. In every book she puts a new trick in the form of either a prologue either whatever she feels (meaning not exactly a prologue. Her own made up thing). I find no harm in that. For her, it has served her writing style a lot! A bold risk that payed-off as her fans connected deeper with her characters and dived deeper into her atmosphere. I am no publisher and these are my observations as a reader and a writer that hasn't published anything yet. (Still working on the writing part). I think that it's wrong to lead the writer with catastrophology. They only end up trying to write in a style that is not their own and beating themselves for their lack of mainstreamness. (Enough with the red flags already)!It kills their initial inspiration and their babies come out like crash test dummies. I know that this is just my opinion but what happened to writing because you in particular wanted to tell in your own personal way your story? Reveal your unique inspiration? Ok, I get that money and fame is an understandable issue but lets not forget that writing is larger than that. It's art in it's core and should be expressed freely. If any publisher should decide to not even read a page of your creation just because it has a prologue, I think that he does not deserve your attention as well. A well written book is a book that is just well writen and a respectable publisher should at least try to find this in yours. Turns out that from this collaboration both make a living (the publisher even more so). I'm not saying to turn "Diva" and turn down every single advise one more experienced has to offer, but non the less keep in mind that without experimentation and unconventionality there would not be freshness or uniqueness in storytelling, which I find to be a pity. Storytelling should not be a mine field.
Well this advice according to the Attorney General, is known to cause cancer in the state of California. I don't know what to say about prologues. Half the time I read them, and the other half I don't. Haven't run into too many epilogues. So as far as personal opinion goes: Pro-Epilogue because it ties up any loose ends, that the official ending didn't. It can also just be a fun little blurb about what happens to the characters at some future point beyond where the official end cuts off. Official consensus is that neither is necessary to the story as a whole, but are fun odds and ends that can be added at the authors discretion. They are ok in my book, so to speak. There will always be nay, and yay people on this issue.
Hmmmmm I accept the challenge! I will write a book that's starts with prologue and then goes to prologue 2 and then prologue 3 and continue on that way till we get to chapter 1 at which point the book will end! Truly would be totally meta
I have a bit of trouble with this. The Hyperion Cantos is an intricately complicated universe and there is no prologue. The Windup Girl, Battlefield Earth, Lilith's Brood ... all sorts of very complex sci-fi worlds were written without prologues. I would say backstory is the least convincing reason to include a prologue. I didn't need a prologue to understand Snowpiercer. Again, backstory is one of the weakest reasons for a prologue. So did the prologue in LOTR bore you? I wonder who here skipped right over it? I did. The maps were useful. I don't think an irregular timeline is the same as a prologue. I think a character starting off telling the reader why they're writing the story is a workable reason for a prologue. The narrator is merely starting the story, I don't consider that a prologue necessarily but it can certainly be called one and it would be fine. A discussion of prologues, in my opinion, need not be a discussion of do or don't, but rather, what should a prologue do, what's the best way to give the reader the information they need to enjoy the story?
I disagree with you on (1) and (2). I'd need to read the example of (3). It's theoretically possible that a backstory/explanatory/history-lesson prologue (which is how I interpret (1) and (2)) could work, but I've never actually seen it work. Star Wars got away with it, but that doesn't mean it was a good idea. (Or that it was necessary--I really don't think that it was.)
(If a writer chooses not to write "PROLOGUE" to point it out it doesn't make it less of a prologue). And what is perceived as needed in a book from your point of view is not the same as mine. It's a matter of taste. I like to know the whole story and understand why we wound up in this specific spot from the beginning of the story. For example, in Snowpiercer you wouldn't have a clue without the intro that debriefed you how this catastrophe occurred and how all these people ended up in a train, until further down in the story. Sure you'd be able to understand what they want, how they go about it and who won, but this is just half of the story. You would have got it, yes, but not in depth. You wouldn't have guessed "Oh, this is what's left of the whole human race" and how important that train is or how it operates. You wouldn't have grasped the despair and hopelessness at its totality. I read books with and without prologues. When the book is good it is good for many different reasons and never have I read a book that didn't contain a huge dump of info about whatever the writer was interested in expressing, although you could do without. Not one. What do you know? Sometimes I even enjoy info-dumping. Sometimes it's all about atmosphere and feeling. Not all pages can be the same interesting. You just fast-read the boring ones until you stumble again on the interesting ones. Reading is tiring for the mind and the eyes, especially when you want to leave the book after you have finished it. We skip paragraphs without realizing it every now and then. If I'm to read a 500 page book with tiny letters, I might as well read a page or two that summarize where I'm actually standing. I'm about to eat the donkey so the tail doesn't seem as big as a problem. Besides, I can even choose to skip that part as well. Good thing that the writer gave me a choice though. By the way, in L.O.T.R. I read the whole prologue and some of the book. I simply found it too tiring to remember all these characters and generally this kind of storytelling is not my thing. Too many of them. It's not the prologue that tired me, it was the whole book. An irregular timeline is not a prologue indeed. I was explaining in what kind of books I've found good use of prologue, one of which was that. I stated with these numbered examples some reasons prologues worked in the works I read (I truly thought I was analytical about them as well) and ended up expressing my opinion upon a subject that's been bothering me and I find relevant to this post. I didn't indicate whether it's right or wrong to write a prologue. So far I haven't written a prologue. It was indeed not needed and suspense wise it works throwing the reader into the deep cold sea a random murderous night. It makes the danger more immediate and the readers involvement going. Guessing is a good thing in my genre only if it's well placed. Making a reader guessing involuntarily though out of pure lack of insight by the writers end in random moments for unnecessary things, doesn't sound too good to me. If the issue can be solved with a mere two page explanation in the beginning, before the real action takes place then give it to me. Have you ever tried to read Dune? I bought the damn thing because I read a part of it which I liked and it ended up to be a disappointment (for me). Not because it didn't contain a prologue, but every time I tried to picture this world, I would soon end up re arranging it again in my mind. You get a clear image of it way in the story and then... it changes again. It's confusing. It seemed like the writer was trying to write his story from an interesting point but wanted to also info-dump the whole backstory simultaneously like a history manual. This killed the fast paced suspense, got you out of the "now" and also made the main backstory hints difficult to underline and keep in mind that they are important. I think that if the writer had written a smart prologue, then he could have avoided this, because indeed his story needs to start from that point and it sure is a difficult place to start off in the specific world. I'm really not joking by saying this: if there needs to be a prologue even in the form of a backstory manual let there be prologue. Give it to me in the beginning and separate it from the rest of the writing and I will use it wisely. Info-dump backstory into the main storytelling because you think you'll just get away with it (a little) and I will also keep on reading if your fantasy is all this interesting. Info-dump a lot and... goodnight.
My only problem with them is (so I've heard) many readers skip them. So if I used one, it would only contain information that the reader doesn't need to know to understand the story. And if they don't need to know it, why is it there? So for me, as a writer, I would never use one. As a reader I have nothing against them.
This is weird. I don't know why I'm so hooked on this topic indeed but it is interesting. I just realized that many of the books I read have prologues and that maybe (from my internet research a couple of hours ago) I'm the minority that finds them useful and actually reads them. In defense of prologues (and the opposite) I find this article to be very explanatory. http://www.writing-world.com/fiction/prologue.shtml In Terry Pratchetts "Discworld - The Color of Magic" I enjoyed the prologue for artistic reasons. It was a fun read. Sure it's not a necessary read, but I didn't find it tiresome the least bit and it didn't feel wrong in any way (especially as continuity goes). If I have to think of a reason I liked it, maybe that would be that I enjoyed the writers way of thinking and expression. So I think it's mainly artistic. In the Otori tales, I only find it helpful as I read the second book a long time after I read the first one and it gave me a fast debriefing of what had happened previously. I didn't have to read the whole book again. And it also tells you some other things that happened in between the year that has passed which serve the plot. Some other notable prologues I've read: Dan Browns "The Da Vinci Code" Arturo Perez Reverte "The Club Dumas" John Conolly "The Reapers" Check them out if you can and tell me what you think. Also, if you are up to task you can mention prologues of books you didn't enjoy and why but maybe in pm so I don't ruin this threads' topic if this is perceived as off topic or personal research. I don't know. Trying to be polite.
One example of a 'bad' prologue that comes to mind is Life of Pi. It's set in the present, and then the book moves back many years to explain how the character got there. I found the prologue so confusing that I gave up reading it there and then, thinking the rest of the book would be equally frustrating. It wasn't until years later that I gave it another try and found that the rest of it makes perfect sense, and it's now one of my favourite books. Clearly, the prologue didn't stop Yann Martel having great success with the book, but I know I won't have been the only one put off by the (unnecessary, IMO) prologue. I bet many of the others never gave it another try at all.
@Malisky, I didn't say not to include a prologue, what I said was the idea one needs one for a complex world can be easily demonstrated to be a false premise by books with complex worlds that don't have prologues. As for needing a prologue for backstory, you can disagree all you want, but very often a new writer will think the reader needs all the backstory that is in the writer's head. It's a natural flaw because we have this whole story in our heads and don't realize one can let the story unfold, the reader doesn't need to know everything up front. When I said I didn't consider something like a storyteller starting the story as a prologue, perhaps that was better said as, a good prologue won't read like a prologue. It will read like part of the story. Your link suggests the same thing. That just leaves what distinguishes it from the rest of the story: If your prologue is a long explanation of setting or characters, I don't think that fits with the advice in your link. The only bad prologues I can recall off hand, (my opinion), I already mentioned: the LOTR's and Neal Stephenson's Anathem. Both were long explanations of things I don't think the reader needed, nor were they interesting to read.
