I have a dilemma of sorts. I am writing a fantasy series and am going for a feeling in the world somewhat similar to A Song of Ice and Fire/Game of Thrones. My prologue begins with a large squadron of cavalrymen being corrupted by a witch. Only one of the cavalrymen is left uncorrupted, but the readers are led to believe he died during the prologue (cliffhanger). Chapter one is just slightly unrelated, but then in chapter two, the readers find out this cavalryman is not killed when he meets with a main character. The way the chapter is currently written, the man divulges every bit of information from the prologue to the main character. This serves as a catalyst for one of the four major story threads. The problem is two fold. First, is it too early to bring such obvious magic into the plot this early or is it better to keep it obscure for just a bit longer? Second, is the plot is advancing too fast for the kind of story (politics, schemes, etc) that the majority of the series is about?
Answer: No. And also yes. How long is a chapter? How long is your book? How much plot movement is there? There is no wrong answer. Mad Max: Fury Road starts off with less than a minute of relative calm, then starts throwing so much world building at the audience that it's (intentionally) overwhelming and impossible for a first-time viewer to accurately and thoroughly keep track of. On the other hand, A Song of Ice and Fire builds slow, stays slow, and stays slow. So it all matters in the execution.
So why do you need the prologue? I think I'd get quite irritated by a book that tells me a story, drifts away for a chapter, and then immediately repeats the story from the beginning.
Yes. I'm a fan of prologues, in the right place, but this sounds a bit dodgy to me as well. Why are you calling your Prologue a prologue? Does it happen many years before the events in Chapter One? Don't forget, the prologue is there to let READERS in on something they need to know before the story starts in real time. So just going by what you've said ...why does Chapter Two need to repeat the whole thing? And why is Chapter One disconnected from the other two? I think we need more information to make a judgement here. I may not have the majority opinion on this, but I'm not a fan of cliffhangers, if they merely withhold information from the reader to get them to turn the page. By cliffhanger I mean the kind like: Omigod, the guy died! Next chapter: No, he didn't—I just wanted to shock you so you'll keep reading. This always feels cheap and gimmicky. I hate it when TV shows do it, and I'm certainly not a fan of it in books. I prefer to eagerly turn pages because I want to find out what happens next as the story naturally unfolds. Not because of some cliffhanger that falls flat, because I discover I've been misled. So ...if other characters think the guy has died, that's fair enough. However, if it's only the reader who thinks the guy has died, I'd rethink the cliffhanger.
Well I wrote the prologue intending for that character to stay dead, and the main character to be unaware of what occurred on that night for most of the first act. The prologue takes place four months before chapter one, though perhaps that is not saying much since there is a four year gap between acts one and two. Thank you all for the responses. I was definitely doubtful that I should bring that character back, and this confirms it. Back to the grave he goes. Chapter one is unrelated from chapter two because it is told from a different character's perspective. The POV character in chapter one has arrived to Lafgrad for a secret meeting to scheme an invasion of his homeland. The next chapter is told from the POV of his brother, who is in Lafgrad to investigate the duke's disappearance. They are unaware of each other's presence in the city.
I'm not yet clear on the purpose of the prologue? I'm trying to suppress my instant objection to prologues, but they do need to have a purpose. Edited to add: That is, both a purpose for (1) existing at all and (2) being called a prologue.
(1.1) The prologue exposes the readers to the dark forces spreading throughout the forest near Lafgrad. The prologue's POV character, Rastisar, is a bodyguard for Duke Alimer, the newly-appointed mayor of Lafgrad. They are travelling to Lafgrad from the capital when they are bewitched. All thirty bodyguards are corrupted to serve an evil deity or slain. Rastisar was originally meant to die in the prologue, and my decision to bring him back in chapter two was a stupid one (which I agree voids the purpose of the prologue), so he is again dead. Thus at the end of the prologue, Rastisar is dead, the others are possessed, and nobody but the readers knows of this. (1.2) A small group of soldiers from the Imperial Guard are sent to investigate Duke Alimer's disappearance and arrive in Lafgrad in chapter two. The assumption they are acting on is that local bandits were responsible for killing the duke and his men. The prologue shows what really happened and demonstrates that the investigators are acting on the wrong assumption. Again, being stupid, I had Rastisar blurb to them the reality of the situation, but since I am editing the chapter to let Rastisar remain dead, this revelation is left for a later chapter. (2) The incident happens four months before chapter one and nobody in the later chapters knows what went down, since every participant in the prologue is killed or possessed at the end. I view the main chapters as the stories of their respective POV characters. Since Rastisar's story starts and ends in the prologue, and given its nature, I think it makes the most sense this way. Is that sufficient?
The change in POV is, I think, a classic reason for a prologue. However, I think that it's a mistake. A reader starts a book with a certain amount of energy and curiosity. They meet a character, identify with that character, start to ride along with him, invest in him... ...and then he dies. Never to be seen again. In fact, you say that everybody dies. So every last bit of empathy investment that the reader has made is thrown away. Then the reader has to gather up that starting-a-book energy AGAIN for the next chapter. They have less energy. Less interest. They don't trust you as much. At this point I think that they're extremely likely to put the book down and never come back. If you need the prologue to pass on facts about the world, I think that you should convey those facts somehow through the first chapters. If you need it because the first chapters aren't interesting or engaging enough, I think that you should make the first chapters more interesting or engaging. Again, I'm usually anti-prologue. I'm curious as to how @jannert, who defends good prologues, feels about this one.
So you want the readers to know that the bodyguards are possessed, but you don't want the other characters to know? If that's the case, then I reckon a Prologue would work. I'd have to see the finished piece to judge, but that's one of the reasons why people can pick a prologue. To let the readers in on a secret that will influence the story, but happens outside of the story in some way. So ...the other characters will think these bodyguards are okay, but WE will know differently? That sounds like it would work. So, the next few chapters will be introducing various POV characters, each with his or her own chapter? As long as each one moves the story along, that should be fine. I'm glad your man stayed dead, because having him miraculously turn out to be alive after all felt like a gimmick rather than a story development. As a reader, I want to trust the author not to lead me astray just to keep me reading.
Why do we do this to every person who mentions a prologue? OP's question wasn't about whether or not his prologue is necessary. It seems pretty rude to derail a thread on a vendetta against prologues.
I don't much care if it's a prologue it chapter 1. My issue is with inducing the reader to invest in a character and then throwing away their investment.
But that's a totally separate issue than the original question. You didn't even engage in the original question. You just straight into a diatribe against prologues. And, look. I'm not here to argue with you, so this is the last I'll say, but I think it's rude. What you want to do could be handled more tactfully. EDIT: And you're not the only one (even in this thread). I see this happening all the time. Someone (usually a new person) asks a question, and a few people jump in and totally derail that thread, often not even trying to answer the original question.
