The big deal about prologues?

I fear I may have written a prologue. Is the world going to end?

I mean, it's not a prologue in the classical sense that I always considered them. I didn't sit down and say "I am going to write a prologue." I started my story off, and the first chapter introduces the major characters and shows a bit about what's going on...just like about every other book I've ever read.

But I'm seeing all this stuff about how this L/A and that one don't like prologues, or they hate prologues, and will refuse to read further when they realize "HEY, this is a prologue." rip rip rip trash

I mean, without starting it out en media res, how the hell are you supposed to start your story?

It's all a little silly to me.

 

What's wrong with en media res? I don't hate on prologues necessarily, but the ones I've written have been a hot mess of info dumping and I've ultimately scrapped them before submitting.

 

Contrary to all the buzz and vitriol on the Internet, there's nothing wrong with prologues in and of themselves. I still see books with them all the time.

What you describe having written sounds like a normal first chapter. Prologues are more removed, usually with some degree of separation from the main story itself. That could be in time, geography, point of view character. Good prologues 1) are dramatic scenes, not just droning textbook infodumps about your world's history, and 2) they should reveal something important to the main story.

A Game of Thrones has my favorite example of a good, necessary prologue. I've mentioned it before. It's a dramatic scene, set before the main story, slightly outside its geographic scope, with a throwaway POV character. This prologue reveals the existence of the Others, the series's true threat. None of this info could be folded into one of the normal chapters. Without the prologue, the readers wouldn't even know the Others actually existed until the second book.

I imagine the distaste toward prologues comes from beginners creating prologues stuffed with creation stories and irrelevant fluff, without a character to latch onto or a conflict to invest yourself in.

 

I'm confused. Is it a first chapter or a prologue? I'm not clear on how you're connecting this with prologues.

If it's a big glob of backstory with nothing happening, that's probably a problem, but that would be a problem whether it's a prologue or not.

 

While I don't disagree with you on general principles with regard to prologues, I'm not with you on this. I think that Martin got away with that particular prologue because he's Martin. And apparently I found it deeply un-memorable, because when people were discussing it in another prologue thread, I had to go back to the book to confirm that it was even there.

I don't want to know about the Others that early, any more than I want to know about Azathoth, or even Cthulhu, when I start reading a Lovecraft story.

 

I can certainly respect that view, though personally confirming their existence (but almost nothing else) so early on created a nice dramatic irony as the setting disintegrated and authority figures paid little if any attention to the crisis forming beyond the Wall.

 

See, even though I totally totally forgot about the prologue, the fact that there was an historical defense point being increasingly neglected was all the foreshadowing I needed to anticipate that there is absolutely going to be big trouble at that defense point. When a bunch of self-important powerful people ignore something...watch that something.

 

If your first chapter (or prologue) does nothing but introduce the characters, I expect that's an issue. But if the characters are doing something (something closely related to the plot of the story, hopefully!) I don't think it's an issue.

But then I don't know why you think it's a prologue...?

 

I agree with you that the blanket disdain for prologues is silly. On the other hand, I see why some people have it -- the problem is bad prologues, but bad prologues are easier to write than good ones (go figure, right?), so they're more likely to crop up and people get overexposed to them.

You can always just label your 'prologue' as the first chapter if you're concerned about scaring people off.

For what it's worth, when I was thinking this over a while back, my research indicated that in general, casual readers don't care one way or the other.

 

I agree with @izzybot here. Prologues aren't inherently bad, per se, if used correctly. Bad prologues, however, are an entirely different beast. Info-dumps, unnecessary creation stories, an "angsty" backstory of the main character, etc. Prologues are terribly misused by amateur writers. Anything terribly misused by amateur writers always gets a bad rap.

 

I don't usually hate prologues. I think if they set the mood, or show something that otherwise wouldn't be shown (and the prologue is relevant to the story), then they can work. I've noticed a problem with them that I myself have fallen into, though, was wanting to show too much at the beginning.

Sometimes letting the reader know too much is as bad as not letting them know enough. Too much foreshadowing can take away from the impact of the reveal, and too much world building or character insight early on can take away from the mystery or wonder that might otherwise be had. A lot of what people like to put in prologues can easily be shown later on at better places, and knowing what is best placed where in the story is a key part of storytelling.

 

Prologues are for lazy, self-important writers.

You begin your story at the beginning... not before the beginning. The only thing I hate more than prologues, are epilogues. Books that have both, should be burned.

 

I think I've worried myself unnecessarily.

I'm well read but I never really thought about prologues and any issues about them until I started perusing writers forums and saw the controversy surrounding them. I certainly don't want to make rookie mistakes on my first novel so I worry incessantly.
I'm guessing that I have not actually written a prologue, but rather a normal first chapter. Admittedly, although it's quite descriptive and compelling, not a lot happens in that short chapter other than introducing my MC and show a little about his personality and what is going on in his life.

He's actually doing something as well, but I'm not really going back in time. It's more setting the present stage.

I had an oh-no-what-have-I-done moment, and probably shouldn't have announced it like the sky was falling. Sorry I got everyone riled up

 

Yes. Buckle up.

I'd suggest going to a library and having a look at at least 20 books. Also, I'd suggest you look up into what a "prologue" is and what is "starting in media res". Because you can start outside "media res" and still not have "a prologue". Food for thought.

 

I recently ran into a similar impasse when I started having some fun with fanfiction. Bear with me, I promise to swing back around.

I got into a conversation in a fanfiction group concerning why one particular story I had written seemed to be rather invisible after I posted it, and all the other stories I had posted had garnered quite a goodly amount of "foot traffic", kudos, positive comments, etc. One member in the group peeked into the story in question and immediately came back and said that the probable reason was that one of my characters was a Marty Stu. This made no sense since the person made that comment about a 20k story, literally a minute after I had posted my question. No one reads a 20k story in one minute flat.

The conversation that followed went something like this:

Me - "I appreciate you looking at my story, but how can you know that? There's no way you read my whole story just now."

Him - "You have an OC (original character) as part of your main (relation)Ship."

Me - "Okay... and?

Him - "That's a Mary Sue / Marty Stu."

Me - "Are you sure you know what that term means?"

Him - "Yes. It's a self-insert, wish fulfillment character. Ultra perfect. You, as you wish you really were, dating the canon character."

Me - "Parts of that definition are mildly correct, but you're conflating two very different things into one. My OC is not me, not perfect, is perhaps the least perfect character in the entire story."

Him - "You might think that, but you're probably wrong. Why else would you create an OC for your main ship other than for him to be you?"

Me - "Because I only wanted to use two canon characters, and they can't be a ship because their relationship is pretty much Mother/Son. Gross."

Him - "Well, I'm telling you, dude, it's your Marty Stu character that's killing your story."

Me - "He's not a Marty Stu, but your conflation of OC and Marty Stu is certainly enlightening."

*other people join the conversation and assure me that I'm the one who's wrong and that undoubtedly, unequivocally, obviously, plainly, look at the history dude, all OCs are in fact Mary Sues and Marty Stus, so much so that the terms are basically interchangeable*​

There was no arguing with these people. I could feel the digital eyerolls coming at me through the screen. Newbies, sheesh! It was very frustrating and yet also illuminating. They were clearly wrong, and yet, in a way they were also right. Turns out there is a long history in fanfiction of OC characters serving exactly the purpose they were describing. But it's a history that was not only foreign to me, but felt fundamentally wrong to me since until a few months ago all I had ever written was original fiction where every single character is an OC; thus, this conflation of terms makes zero sense in original fiction. I didn't create my OC as a self-insert.

You're going to hear a lot of eyerollish commentary about prologues. And there is a history behind this commentary and deep-seated negative opinion of prologues. Just pay attention to the things people say they don't like about prologues and read yours with an objective eye. If it's not committing these assumed, obvious, it always happens dude, sins, then you're fine.

 

Thank goodness I already have 30 years as a songwriter, so I'm used to criticism. I imagine that being young and first sharing your work publicly for the first time would be emotional torture.

I think I'm good with my first chapter at this point. I got a little panicky there, but it would probably be a stretch to call it a prologue.

Hopefully that will make up for the wake up scene later lol

 

Lol this is news to me? Why would someone refuse to buy a book just because it has a prologue? If you don't like it just skip it. If you like the story enough you'll go back and read it anyway. I don't understand what's the big deal, most books I know usually have one? Jeeeez

 

I don't understand the hate towards prologues, either. Well, badly-written/implemented ones certainly could leave a bad taste in someone's mouth, but that's no reason to discredit them entirely. Also, not so sure your situation sounds like a prologue to me.

I do have a story where I have a prologue only because it takes place several months before the actual start of the story. It gives the reader an idea of what the war the story encompasses is about. I mean...a part of me wonders if I even need that prologue, but it's tough to decide whether or not to trash it because I like some of the details that are in it. But it wouldn't work as Chapter 1 because it's not focusing on a principal character. An important character, yes, but not who I consider to be the main protagonist.

 

We've often talked about the issue of bad prologues being infodumps.

However, it's possible for a good, interesting, dynamic prologue to be even worse as far as I'm concerned, because a prologue tends to start with a character that isn't a/the main character, sometimes a character that we'll never see again. So I meet a character, I like them, I get invested in them...and they're gone, never to return.

Now, one could argue that the word "prologue" is a warning not to get too attached to that character. But...is a warning that warns me not to get too interested, too engaged, really a great idea for the beginning of a book?

This makes me wonder if prologues might cause more damage when a lot of the interest of the book is character, rather than plot. A prologue that serves as a plot teaser may enhance a plot-centered book or enhance the experience of any book for a plot-centered reader. Foreshadowing, bits of mystery, they're all good things for plot excitement.

But disconnect and disruption are not great for character; we like to get absorbed in characters. For a character-centered reader or a character-centered book, a prologue may have more ways to go more horribly wrong. The prologue could increase character absorption--say, how'd they change from that person to this person? But I feel that it's a more difficult task.

To put this much more briefly: Prologues are very frequently disruptive. Plot IS disruption. Character, not as much.

 

I love books with prologues. So much foreshadowing goes into it. It kind of sets the stage. An appetizer if you please.

 

I have an epilogue in my book. I have always enjoyed the little extra in books I read.

 

My guess is that epilogues don't get as much of a bad wrap because by the time the reader gets to them it's too late -- they've already read the book and an epilogue probably isn't going to be so amazing/terrible as to significantly change their opinion of the book as a whole.

 

This is subject to change, but my current version of my WIP has a prologue where the male lead kills two people that acknowledge him as a peer in cold blood. It ends with one of them calling him a traitor with his last words, to which he replies, "I was never your ally."

The reason for it being a prologue is that it is a significant part of the character that I want the reader to see rather than be told about and I want that to be in the back of the reader's mind in the main body of the story, but the scene itself is removed from the main setting.