From what I've seen, the general opinion on prologues is that they're a textual manifestation of the ego a writer has in regards to their storytelling abilities. So I would avoid making one, just to avoid all that flak from a more critical audience.
I think it's a mistake to avoid writing something because of some perceived dislike by some unconfirmed segment of readers. I've seen people say they hate prologues and then turn around and say, "Just rename it Chapter 1". It doesn't change what was written - it only gives it a title that's more palatable to them. Which obviously makes no sense. If it was unnecessary or poorly written as "Prologue", why would it be necessary or well written as "Chapter 1"? If the story needs it, write it and write it well - just like any other part of the story.
I am sure people read prologues. I personally find epilogues more useful. But I think prologues probably got plenty of use. As for making the reader scratch their head, that can be both good or bad. The modern audience is pretty unable to take a moment of head-scratching. lol If it bothers you that they'll be scratching their head, then take care of that ahead of time. Use your best judgment as the author.
If you want a prologue (though I advise against it), don't call it a prologue, just call it chapter 1. A lot of people simply skip pages until they see "Chapter 1". And I've yet to read a prologue that was actually necessary, hence why I say just go straight for chapter 1.
If it's a true prologue, it's not the first chapter. If it actually works as the first chapter, it wasn't a prologue to begin with. Renaming it the first chapter does not change how well it's written or whether or not it's needed. It's just tricking people who refuse to read prologues into reading it, and if they want to miss part of the story, their problem. I'd love to do a survey of people who hate prologues - see how many hate a piece titled Prologue and how many love it when named Chapter One.
In my two partial stories, I include a prologue. The prologue for the first is 2500 years before the main story and is half a page long. The one for the other story is about half a billion years in the past and is about 3/4 a page long. I include them to try to pique the interest of the reader with a short premise for the story since my first chapters tend to be a bit slow.
The problem with that is if it was a bad prologue, changing it to chapter 1 just makes it a bad chapter 1. It seems to me like a lot of the outcry against prologues is that it can make the beginning of a story lack a lot of action and really boring to read... which is why people might skip them if they sense this. So my advice in this case would be to not add 10 pages of history to the beginning of your story. Try to give the reader something interesting to read in the beginning so that they'll stick around. Save the history lesson for later in the book.
I did the same thing, but for a different reason. The 'action' in the prologue was so different and contained characters that will not play a major part in the overall arc. I believed making the information as simply "Chapter One" was confusing or at least disingenuous. In fact, the story hinges on the death of the lead in the first chapter. By defining the initial information as a prologue, I felt that it provided a backdrop, but then started the tale with a clearer view of who's who.
Prologues are fine if done right. I'd argue that if there is an important piece of backstory necessary for your work, it's better to actually give the reader a first hand look at it rather than having to rely on clumsy infodumps later on. A good example is the prologue to "The Eye of the World" in "The Wheel of Time" series (the later prologues being a very different affair.). Or perhaps you're sticking to a third person limited view for your story, in which case a prologue can be used to give a one-off point of view, showing events the usual POV's aren't privy to. An example is all the prologue (and epilogue.) chapters in George R.R Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire" and it's also the method I'm using in my WIP.
That happens with me as well. My first chapters are not that interesting, I'm afraid, and the prologue tells a tiny bit of the backstory which makes the slow start of the story more interesting and catchier than without the prologues.
What is a prologue? I ask this because people seem to be operating under the belief that a prologue is one of three things: (1) Story before the real story starts. "Here's what happened 1,000 years ago, and is totally relevant... but not relevant enough to actually be included in the story, so I tacked it on the front and called it a prologue." (2) Story outside of the real story. This includes prologues that "set the scene" and read like an appetiser before the main course but, again, aren't important enough to be Chapter One, for whatever reason. (3) Background info. A user manual. A text book. An "Idiot's Guide to the World I Built." They usually read like bricks, but some authors (and readers) are fond of them for whatever reason. I don't know if any of these definitions are "correct," but this is the idea I get every time this debate pops up. These are the three main schools of thought I see. I usually read them, but I can understand why someone wouldn't. If I can't get through the prologue, I often won't bother to read the book. The prologues I read and actually like often leave me wondering why they weren't deemed worthy of being "Chapter One." And if I reach the end of the book and still don't see what purpose the prologue served, I'm left wondering why it was there at all. The same could be said of any chapter, but EXTRA scrutiny falls on "prologues" since the author has singled them out by labelling them differently. So what is a prologue? What makes it different from any other chapter? It's either part of your story or it isn't, so why single this part out as if it is somehow different or special? And if it really is "different" or "special" why the heck is it packaged with an entire book of chapters that don't match it at all? And if it does match them, why is it not one of them? At the end of the day, it really is just semantics. A well-done prologue is just a chapter with a different name. I don't scorn authors for doing it, but it does leave me wondering why. Why, why, why, why.
Yes and no. I think it would be more correct to say the prologue is a mini-story rather than just another chapter, but even that isn't really correct. It describes events or people that affect the events/people of the main story, but are not directly involved with the current (main) story. It shouldn't be 'backstory' in the general use of that term, because it's not long enough (or shouldn't be). It's set in a time significantly different than the time of the main story. And it can tell the reader things that the MCs of the main story don't know, or won't find out for some time, and thus draws the reader deeper into the participatory part of story-telling. It is possible to enjoy a book without reading the prologue. IMHO, however, it is not possible to enjoy it as fully or understand the nuances as well if one does not read the prologue. I don't think I've read any more prologues that were badly written or unnecessary than I have chapters - there will always be some that fit those descriptions (I've found a number of mid-book chapters to be fairly crappy) but that doesn't make it a rule, doesn't mean I should automatically skip reading them, and is certainly no reason not to include them.
I agree with what Cogito has been preaching. Prologues are a sin of indulgence that's bad for the soul of the story. I read prologues but most of the time they are so confusing and pointless. They rarely add and often detract from the overall story.
I think the first chapter can just as well 'set the tone' for the story, and I really don't see the point of dedicating the prologue to a minor character who isn't even an important part of the story. To me it seems a little like the author is trying to say "look at this nice backstory I invented for one of my characters. It's not really that important but I think it's good anyway so I put it here for you to admire." I used to write prologues (actually, one, for my first story), only to realize the story was just as well without it. Now I don't anymore, but that doesn't mean I would skip them in a novel. But if it's bad, I will quit reading the novel before chapter one, or if the prologue is interesting and the first chapter is dull, I will probably put it away too.
I have determined to skip the middle five chapters of every book; they always wander, the author obviously lost as to how to move on to the next phase. However, if the author renumbers them so they actually seem to appear later than the middle, I'll read them. They won't wander at all then, and the author will have written them just as brilliantly as the rest of the book.
I've never skipped a prologue. I couldn't bring myself to miss anything at all. The story would feel incomplete, even if the prologue was unnecessary.
Agreed. I read what is there, period. But I also judge. When I read, I'm also evaluating what works well and what does not. There are prologues that work well, but my experience as a critical reader is that the majority of them are wasted effort. Not all, but the majority.
In Firewife by Tinling Choong, there's a 'misplaced prologue' at the end, explaining the mythological roots behind the book. Within the context, it enhanced the book in a way that wouldn't be possible if the prologue was placed at the beginning or if there was no prologue at all. Has anyone come upon a prologue at the end, or an epilogue at the beginning? I think it's an interesting concept that can't be widely applied. Firewife isn't the most mainstream novel, so that made me wonder, under what circumstances would you write a misplaced prologue? How could it improve the book? Also, is there a name for it? Thanks in advance!
Sounds more like an Afterword, which is author notes placed after the story, but not a part of the story. My feeling is that most (not all, but most) prologues are already misplaced -- they should have been placed in the trash bucket.
Oh no you didn't! ahaha totally agree, even if i have a prologue in my soon to be book. but i'm pretty sure it's necessary i already made it half the length it used to be.
Just a quick and simple question to see how everyone else feels. What do you think about prologues? Do you think they take away from the story or add to it? Maybe they just confuse you or maybe you feel it's a good way to introduce suspense?
There have been millions of threads on this, even debates...just look below at 'similar threads' Personally I don't like them. Most of the time, the story doesn't even need them. Back story can be revealed through the text.
Most novels with prologues would be better if the prologue were removed. If a prologue is there to present background information, LOSE IT! Never, ever, EVER, subject the reader to a history lesson before they have even begun the story. Some people put in "teaser" prologues that give a glimpse of a scene later in the novel. In one of the novels I'm working on, I had such a prologue, but I have since scrapped it, Your best strategy is to enter the story itself as quickly as possible. In accordance with that, my general recommendation is not to use a prologue at all. I won't go so far as to declare that all prologues are redolent rubbish, but I will say don't put one in without a damned good reason. And re-examine your reasons several times over the course of writing and revising your manuscript. Don;t search for reasons to remove the prologue; look for, and ruthlessly challenge, your reasons for keeping it.
