To prologue or not to prologue?

It occurs to me (Ok, it's probably not a new thought, but I don't remember talking about exactly this nuance) that part of my issue with prologues is that they tend to be used to explain background, and I think that people are far too quick to feel that they need to explain background. Background is usually better discovered. Not always; there are plenty of exceptions, but, usually.

 

This is perfect for this thread.

 

I'm totally on board with that, as long as your next step isn't to say: "Ergo, I won't read prologues because they MIGHT contain a self-conscious explanation of background."

My only point in all of these threads isn't to defend bad or unnecessary prologues—which certainly do exist. I've never said they don't. What I refuse to back down on is the notion that because some don't work, we should never write a prologue at all.

We should be learning to write good prologues, and learning to figure out when one is needed and when it's not—and understanding what a wonderful start a good prologue can give a story. And encouraging our readers to give them a chance, rather than assuming they should be skipped.

 

THIS!!!^

Absolutely. Because the fact is that good books are being traditionally published and are selling successfully despite the perceived handicap of having a prologue.

 

I'm sure I've seen at least two well known authors use a prologue in the wrong way. But I will double check before going any further ...

 

Hmmmm. The difficulty in tracking that, is that you would have to track it in two parts, one for trad pub books and one for self pub books.

 

That depends if the background is discoverable within the main body of the story. Sometimes it isn't.

 

Panders are endangered! Fight for panders! (Or am I losing language, reading, and comprehension skills?)

 

Panders eat only one kind of leaf. All other leaves that aren't that particular kind of leaf are rejected by the pander. They won't even taste one. Panders are now an endangered species.