And you're using your aversion to prologues to tell someone to 'rig' their story. I suppose if some readers would give bad reviews of stories with puppies you'd tell the author to use a kitten instead. Writers should not pander for possible good reviews from a segment of readers. They should write their story in their way and if some don't like it, well, that's life. Nobody will ever write a story in a way that everyone loves.
It's hardly rigging. If you can't work crucial information into the action of the story itself, you need to take more time to develop your craft. I'm sorry you're so offended by what is a very simple concept of good storytelling. You can take consolation in the fact that everyone is free to write as badly as they want, and no one is going to kick down your door and revise your manuscript.
I'm sorry that being disagreed with causes you to resort to phrases such as "immature attitude". I take consolation in the fact that no one will kick down my door and revise my ms in the manner you would "advise", which would, IMO, be writing badly. Obviously I'm not looking in your direction for my audience, as I prefer those who read the whole book. Now, if you wish to continue the personal aspect of this "discussion", I suggest PMs, rather than taking up space here arguing what "good writing" supposedly is.
Hi - Just reading over this thread and saw quite a few good contributions. Including this one. Although I don't agree with your point of view, I think you've stated it very well. What I'm sensing here is the notion that a reader comes into a story with certain expectations. Some readers expect to be entertained, or enthralled or challenged or whatever. All these expectations are valid. However, sometimes these expectations become focused on certain aspects of the storytelling itself. I hate sex scenes and won't read any book containing them. I think romance is silly and the first whiff of it sends me off to read something else. I don't like vernacular dialogue, so I'll scarper at the first sign of it. Any time I read a recipe in a novel I get sick to my stomach. I hate chapter headings, so as soon as I see one I stop reading. I detest violence, so the minute a character does something violent, I'm outta here. I hate italics, so as soon as the writer employs them, I lose respect and stop reading. I don't like characters who are freckled and fat, so as soon as one turns up, I'm outta here. I don't like prologues, so I will never read a story that starts with one. A good writer shouldn't need to resort to sex, romance, vernacular dialogue, chapter headings, food, violence, italics, freckled and fat characters or prologues to tell their story. They should learn to become better writers. Catch my drift? If you start to put these kinds of must/must-not requirements into all your reading, you risk missing the story the author is actually telling. That is your prerogative, of course—but it's also your loss. Authors are NOT compelled to write specifially to please you, or walk on eggshells hoping that none of the storytelling methods they choose will annoy you personally. They write their own story to please whomever it pleases. If you don't like prologues, that's fine. Lots of readers (including me) do. I don't like badly-written prologues, but I would never reject a book simply because it contains a prologue. Nor would I EVER assume that an author is a bad writer because he or she chooses to start a story with one. I settle in and let an author take me on a journey. I may get off at an early stop if I'm not enjoying myself, but that's my own choice. I don't expect everybody else to get off the train when I do. After the journey is over I decide whether or not taking the journey was worth it, and whether or not I might take another journey with the same author. We all like different journeys, don't we?
I'm not having a go at you, Chicken Freak, because you presented this as 'random thoughts.' Any random thoughts are valid, as far as I'm concerned. But here is a quote which I've recently incorporated into my signature that explains what a prologue is for. Of course there are other ways to incorporate these things into a story, but avoiding writing a prologue simply because some people are prejudiced against them is just plain silly. Prejudices are prejudices. No point in pandering to them. "A prologue is an episode the pertains to the story but does not include the hero (or includes the hero at a time well before the story proper begins, when he's a child.) A prologue can establish why things are as they are in the world of your story, and why a character is the way he his when the main action begins. And a prologue can even hint at or reveal the danger that will soon sweep over the hero's life." - Jeff Gerke, author of Write Your Novel In A Month
I merely made a post highlighting potential issues with prologues. There was no snarkiness in it, however you chose to reply in a snarky manner. I'll concede it might not be immaturity. It may be insecurity or having been raised with a deficit of wit, or any number of other possibilities I do not have the credentials to speculate upon. I perceive that you like to get the last word in, so in the spirit of the approaching holidays I will not reply to any response you might have to offer in this thread. Our town had its annual Christmas parade last night, and although I am not religious I feel the spirit of magnanimity has settled firmly onto my shoulders. You can take as long as you like to construct a wry response, or to agitate the gray matter domiciled in your skull for a riposte that will go unchallenged.* Cheers. *If you feel unequal to the task, I can send you something via PM and you can pass it off as your own work in this thread. In the further spirit of the holidays, I'm offering a discounted rate of $65 per hour. I accept Paypal.
I never suggested otherwise. Did my post give you that impression, or are you just making an independent observation? My firm belief is that authors should write the story they want to write, irrespective of advice to the contrary from me, you, Stephen King, or any other individual. I don't think there is anything wrong, however, with offering perspectives to the question addressed. I don't like prologues in general, because many of them are poorly done. The observation that some readers skip prologues came from an article I read by traditional publishing editor (and if she can be believed, more people than I thought skip them). I think the advice not to put anything crucial only in the prologue is worth considering. I don't think a good writer would have much difficultly slipping the information into the story proper so that if a reader hasn't read the prologue they still have the information. The ultimate decision belongs to the writer, of course.
I was just responding to what looked like prejudice against prologues to me. If I'm wrong, and you are not prejudiced against prologues, and will always give them a fair go as a part of the storytelling method the writer has chosen to use, I apologise. You did say this, however: For me, that implies you think a prologue indicates an inferior writer, one who 'can't' work crucial information into the main body of the story, and who consequently needs to develop their craft. There are many MANY good/great published authors out there who have written prologues, and have chosen to give crucial information they feel the reader needs to know AT THE START in the form of a prologue. Drip-feeding crucial information isn't always the best way to tell a story. And a good prologue is never an info-dump. You may not like prologues or choose to use them yourself for whatever reason, but a prologue certainly does not indicate a writer's lack of craft. This is just one aspect of craft that a good writer will learn to use properly, and will employ when the situation calls for it. The trick is to learn to do it well. It's like using commas. Just because some writers misuse commas doesn't mean we shouldn't use them at all, does it? I think it means we need to learn to use them properly. Anyway, I wasn't attempting to offend you in any way. But I do intend to oppose you on this issue.
I am biased against them. All other things being equal, if I'm looking at two books, one which has a prologue and one that does not, I'm more likely to buy the latter. That's simply because I've seen enough bad prologues. I've also seen good ones, and I won't rule a book out because it has one. It does seem to me that with a prologue, even the author is acknowledging that the story starts elsewhere (Chapter 1), but has decided to put in some other stuff before getting to the story. It's most pronounced when the prologue is just a bunch of backstory or world-building, which I've seen a lot in indie or self-published works in particular. I think you end up with a stronger work if you get that information across in the body of the story in a more organic manner than simply dumping it all into a prologue.
Fair enough. I agree that it's possible to write a bad prologue. Prologues are great for presenting inciting incidents that are crucial to the story, but are disconnected from the main story arc in some way. It could be a detailed (nay, even exciting) incident that happens to the main POV character way outside the timeline of the main story (as in childhood.) I could be something that has happened to somebody else (an ancestor of a character, or the character's predecessor in a job) that starts a chain of events that explodes in the POV character's face. It could be something that happens to to somebody within the same time frame but to a character we won't meet again in the story, or happens someplace we'll not be visiting again. The demise of a murder victim is frequently presented as a prologue, if the victim isn't personally important to the story, but the death is. All of these things might be something the main POV character isn't aware of, so it doesn't make sense to try drip-feeding it in. To do that, you'd need to step out of POV to give the reader the scene—which isn't always the best way to tell the story. All of these kinds of situations CAN be worked into the body of the story, but that's not necessarily the best way to do it in all cases. It all boils down to this: does the reader needs to know this information (or see an incident happen) before they start reading the main body of the story? If the answer is 'yes,' then a prologue is a perfectly legitimate way to begin a book. The word Prologue (to an unbiased reader) signals that this chapter will differ from ALL the others in some way. That's it. Nothing more sinister than that. I've always maintained it's just as easy to write a bad Chapter One, or drip-feed information into a story in a clumsy fashion as it is to write a bad prologue. It's not the form you choose, it's how well you employ it that counts.
Yes, I agree with this and your other points. I think part of the problem, particularly with beginning writers, is a perceived need for a prologue where one isn't necessarily. In other words, the story starts in Chapter 1, and that's where the writer's passion also starts. I've read many works in critique books where you can tell that Chapter 1 is what excited the author, and that excitement is transferred to the reader. You look at the prologue and it is a dull recitation of backstory and world-building elements, and when you ask why it is there the answer is "well, there's all this stuff I think the reader needs to know about my world or characters, etc." If that's the kind of prologue it is, and I'm reviewing the work for someone, I usually recommend getting rid of it. If the reader needs to know that stuff, then work it into the main story. On the other hand, good prologues work as you said. They're just as engaging as any other part of the book, and you can tell the author felt just as much passion toward writing the prologue as the other parts. It is simply called a prologue because it is offset in time, characters, theme, or some other element where it makes sense to highlight its separateness from the main story.
Yay! We agree, then. I totally agree with what you said about the dull recitation of backstory and world-building elements. A story should never start with dull stuff, whether it's a Prologue or a Chapter One. Something needs to entice a reader into the story, and a boring potted history of wars, pestilence or a long list of who begat whom is not likely to accomplish this. I read something interesting today regarding Prologues. It said that a Prologue should read like a one-off short story, only it's a short story where the ending is left open. I like that. That kind of 'short story' will engage a reader and definitely make them want to read on, because there will be some kind of closure in the main story itself.
I like a short prologue if the first chapter doesn't giving the reader all the info they need to get into the story, kind of like a running start to a race....
Hello, As the title suggests. I've begun my novel with a scene which is about a page in length, from the POV of a significant character, before switching to the next scene from the POV of the main character. I then had a minor flutter, thinking perhaps the first page should be a prologue, but realised that I rarely read anything with a prologue these days. I perused the forum first for prologue-related threads, and indeed, the general consensus seems to be prologues are largely unnecessary, but saw none that directly address this question. I'm inclined to think I should stick with my original thought, but would appreciate feedback on the subject from others. To facilitate that, I'll briefly-ish outline the start. The stand alone, first page: Main character is dying, paramedics arrive when she is unconscious, at the last minute. Paramedics do their thing. They do manage to save her and take her to hospital (although I probably won't state that so obviously, it may end as they take her to the ambulance/similar). Switch to next section: Main character wakes up. Cue her thoughts, sensory stimuli, feelings as this happens. Leading into a hospital scene and rest of chapter. To me, that feels good as 'chapter one', without the need for a prologue. However I was uncertain if perhaps there was a technical reason to label something a prologue at times, although I couldn't find anything suggesting that would be the case here. Thanks in advance for any constructive comments
Is the body of the story written in first person? If not, I don't see why the story couldn't just open with a description of her being attended to by paramedics. Not really a prologue, just the story opening, which then continues with her in the hospital. If the rest is in first person, then I guess that page would be a sort of prologue, but you wouldn't need to label it as such.
I can't think of a good reason to feel compelled to call that a prologue. If you prefer to call it Chapter 1, stick with that.
I'd go with calling it chapter one. It seems pretty connected to the rest of the story, so I don't see a need to set it off with the "prologue" designation.
It's written in the third person, although a useful point to consider for future reference. Thanks. Yes my feeling is that it's the opening of the story. I'm deliberately limiting it to a page in length as any longer seems unnecessary. It's useful, and in this case reassuring so far, to hear other people's opinions.
I wouldn't call it a prologue, because it really doesn't fit the definition, but I'm not sure I'd call it Chapter 1 by itself. And is this first page from the POV of "a significant character" or the MC? But my main thing is the length. One page? Why not just the first scene(s) of the first chapter?
My impression was that the first page was just a scene, and then the rest of the hospital stuff was the rest of the chapter? Did I misread?
Possibly I misread it - I saw the "standalone" thing and guess I assumed she meant that as either the prologue or the first chapter.
Well, I'm a fan of prologues in the right place, but I agree with the other people here who said this doesn't sound like a prologue. If this is a significant character whom we will meet again, and this scene leads directly to the next one, I'd just include it as part of Chapter One, as the starting scene. Or - you could include it as a short scene at the start of a book, but don't give it a chapter title at all. I've seen that done a lot recently. A Prologue implies that it's a chapter set apart from the rest of the story in some significant way. Either it's a POV character we won't meet again, or it's a scene from the past that is not directly connected to Chapter One but provides the framework for the story, or it's an inciting incident that happens a long time ago, or shows something that the reader needs to know but will be kept hidden from the characters in the story till later on—that kind of thing. However, if your character is taken ill (or dying) and rushed to hospital, followed by a scene where she/he wakes up in hospital, that seems pretty connected ...unless I'm missing something.
@BayView and shadowwalker I did mean the first page was a stand alone scene, which would be the first page of chapter one, with the next scene continuing the chapter.
@jannert From the limited and slightly vague information I found when checking, I would agree with your reasoning. Being something of a perfectionist I wanted to ensure I wasn't missing anything either
