To echo mammamaia and Steerpike, 10k is definitely too long for a prologue. I'd say it's too big for a chapter, but chapter length is very much dependent on the individual story. Sufficed to say, it's much much longer than I would be comfortable with. You say you can't distribute the information throughout the rest of the story. Why? If it's because you feel you need the prologue for a full understanding of the rest of the story, then I'd suggest you take another look. There is a danger of underestimating your audience, and thinking you have to spoonfeed them all of the background. It may be that the lingering question of why the antagonist is doing what he's doing is an added impetus to keep the reader moving onwards.
"Ideally, the prologue should be zero words long " (Quote thing not working yet) Sigh... Ideally, like chapter length or book length, it needs to be as long as needed to effectively make its point. If it's more than 1-3 pages, however, the contents more than likely need to be disseminated throughout the rest of the story - or in the case of 10k words - possibly be a prequel.
I was being somewhat humorous shadowwalker, but my general feeling is that the prologue should be zero words long because there shouldn't be a prologue. Start the story where it begins, not with some kind of backstory or with events that take place before the story.
Pops And Steerpike: you will be so proud of me now that I have excluded the prologue I previously defended so much. At a certain point I figured it was doing more harm than good, plus it gave an impression of a totally different kind of story than it was. But it took me the entire story plus a readers opinion for me to figure it out. No more prologues for me. I'm ready to agree with you on this one!
"I was being somewhat humorous shadowwalker, but my general feeling is that the prologue should be zero words long because there shouldn't be a prologue. Start the story where it begins, not with some kind of backstory or with events that take place before the story. " - Steerpike I think my main objection in this regard is this idea that a good prologue is no prologue. It's very short-sighted IMHO. I've used them and I've read a great many excellent books that have also used them. If a prologue is poorly written, it's because of the writer, not because it's a prologue. If it's not needed, it's because the information in it is not needed or can be put elsewhere in the story, not because it's a prologue. And Tesoro, to say 'No more prologues for me' just because in this one story, you decided it wasn't necessary, makes no sense either. If a story needs a prologue, write it. If some readers skip it - so be it. A good one adds depth and understanding and enhances the story - those who skip it just because it's a prologue miss out on that.
I think my dislike of prologues is mostly because I can't immediately think of a prologue used in something I've read which was appropriate. In my experience, they either don't need to be there, or should simply be labelled chapter 1. I'm sure there are excellent prologues, but my point is that they're rare. In 9 out of 10 cases, a prologue is unnecessary.
Prologues can be as long as they need to be, even longer than the story itself. There's no law for writing.
That's kind of my point, Quezacotl. Sure you can label it "prologue", you're exactly right that there's nothing to stop you doing that. But that doesn't necessarily make it a prologue, and most prologues I read in published books are either a) irrelevancies, or b) chapter 1.
> I think my dislike of prologues is mostly because I can't immediately think of a prologue used in something I've read which was appropriate. In my experience, they either don't need to be there, or should simply be labelled chapter 1. I don't know if you've read it, but Brandon Sanderson's The Way Of Kings (From his The Stormlight Archive) has a pretty great prologue. It ties into the story at later points, specifically when one of the character starts to have 'dreams' that relate to the events that unfolded in the prologue, and it also gives you some idea as to what people are referring to throughout the story when they refer to this event. I'd say that book did its' prologue well.
I think we should be clear that these are merely opinions, since I doubt anyone has read all books with prologues and can declare with impunity that 90% of them are unnecessary. Personally, yes, I have read some prologues that weren't needed, but of those I have read, the majority were needed and did indeed add quality to the book. However, I have yet to read a prologue that could be labeled "Chapter 1". I have also heard people say authors should label prologues "Chapter 1" because then they would read them. Which, of course, makes absolutely no sense.
'can' only means 'it's possible' for writers to write anything they want... but when writing with the intention of getting one's work accepted by a traditional [paying] publisher, or self-publishing and having total strangers pay to read it, they must go beyond 'can' to 'should'... sure, a writer can write a single word story, but no one will buy it... and one can write a 10,000 word prologue, but no publisher will accept it... while you're right in saying 'laws' don't apply to writing [other than those that pertain to legal issues such as are covered by copyright law], the 'law' of common sense should always be considered, if one wants to succeed as a writer...
The deal with prologues is that readers tend to subconsciously shut their minds off or get bored waiting for the "real" action to start. Even switching the word "prologue" at the beginning to "chapter 1" might give it a better feel, even if the content is the same. I wouldn't suggest that (the work itself has to be strong), but that goes to show you how bad a rap prologues have it. Anyway, because prologues are seen as the boring introduction of a story, you have to up your ante. Make the prologue really count. Start off with a bang-up first sentence. Whatever rules to writing you've heard about polishing your first few pages should be doubly applied to prologues. So think long and hard about if you really need it or if the information can be told in spats along the way. Sometimes it's better for the readers to not know it. They'll be intrigued just finding out what that "mysterious tractor accident" really was.
I'm usually against the idea of a prologue; you can easily have characters refer to the incident in question during the story. If I'm going to include a prologue, it's a page or two at most. However, it's your choice.
But again - this is all purely your opinion. Has anyone done a scientific survey to prove that readers, agents, publishers don't like prologues? I haven't seen one. I've seen a couple blogs that ask the question in a way guaranteed to get the answer which agrees with the blogger's opinion, but that's about it. To state as fact that readers overall find them boring is wrong unless you can prove that most readers do. You can state that readers who find them boring may be the most vocal, but that's about it.To rename the prologue 'Chapter One' is simply catering to the illogical prejudice of some readers/agents. A good prologue cannot be renamed Chapter One - it won't flow into the rest of the story. I'm just frustrated that so many 'opponents' state their opinions as if they were fact.
But again - this isn't. I don't even know where you thought I said that. Some posters here have said the same. Check out the first comment here from an agent/writer, the first paragraph here, the second paragraph here, the second paragraph here, the opening sentence here, here (skip to the first response), here (skip to Cyla's post of April 25th), or the first paragraph here. Some of these bloggers or forum writers advocate the use of prologues (good ones, anyway) but will admit to the stigma. And, if you want, I can dig up the book or two I've read that cautions the use of prologues. One of the books is Thanks, But This Isn't For Us by Jessica Page Morrell, a writer and writing coach. Still, I never said it was just my opinion. You could argue that these people don't like bad prologues--because good prologues are, indeed, necessary--but who knows a bad prologue from a good one just by reading "Prologue" at the top of a page? A reader is just as likely to skip a good prologue as he or she is to skip a bad one if they skip it at all. Also, I don't want to say it hurts your chances of publication, but I don't think it helps. It's just the stigma. I don't think anybody has to set out and do a "scientific survey"; people say they don't like prologues. Even if it's just the vocal readers, editors, agents, or publishers, there's a percentage of people that don't like them or find them boring. It doesn't even have to be the majority, but it's obvious there's enough of a bad name on prologues to caution their use. So, just like with everything else, I'd say use it only if you can't find another way. Think long and hard before putting one in and, those times you do, make it strong and necessary. I know that sounds obvious, but it bears mentioning.
I think it really depends on the story. I like writing mystery stories, and sometimes a prologue works. I wrote a series of stories that were told in first person from the MCs point of view. But I had the prologue told in 3rd person from the perspective of the "killer" because I really wanted to set up the MC vs killer storyline from page one. People talk about how it can really turn people off of a story because they are waiting for the real action to start. I say that if you use the prologue in the way I just mentioned... it does the exact opposite. You have the murder happen on page 1... the action starts on page 1. But I echo what a lot of other people have been saying. Gotta keep it short. I wouldn't say 1-2 pages but only 1 "event" I would say.
Sigh. Again, I'm not seeing any stigma in general. I see, on various forums, people who don't like them and people who do. I also see those who don't being much more strident about discouraging their use - ie, "I don't like them and I know x number of other people who don't so no one should use them.". But where is the proof that having one automatically decreases the chance of getting picked up by an agent, or of being published? Without that proof, it is indeed only a matter of personal likes/dislikes, and shouldn't be considered by the questioning writer as anything but. Prologues should be as well-written as the rest of the book. They should be used when needed to enhance the story, not used when that isn't the case. To state otherwise makes as much sense as saying one should never have a Chapter 13.
Sorry if I used a blanket term such as "readers" in the first post. What I meant by "readers" is not "all readers", but "there are readers who." So I'll modify the statement: some, maybe most, maybe not, find prolgoues boring and skip them. Editors, publishers, and people in the biz are among those people. Yes, among all readers, there are people who don't mind prolgoues, but there are those who skip them and who are bored of them. We're arguing the same thing, but you say "It's okay to use them as long as they're good" where I say "It's okay to use them but take note of how they're seen by some people." At this point, I don't know what it is about my post you disagree with now, because it seems as if you went from "I haven't seen anybody say they don't like them" to "There are people who don't like them and people who do." It seems to me you're saying there's no public opinion about prologues. I've seen enough out there and read some writing books on the subject to say, yeah, there is a negative assocation some people have with prologues, and some of those are agents, publishers, and the like. To me, it's very obvious. I said I don't want to say they hurt your chances of being published, but they couldn't help. But now that you mention it, I'm not really sure how agents, publishers, and editors skipping them could work in a writer's favour. Some won't skip them, but some will. Risk it if you want, but where even a small percentage of publishers and agents skip them lowers your chances. But I guess we have to agree to disagree here. I recognize prologues have their place, but I just can't honestly get behind the idea that they're as universally well-received as any regular chapter, given what's been said about them. Even if it's said by a subset of readers and publsihers, it seems like a big enough subset to take notice. I can only say what I set out to say before: there are people out there who skip prologues and find them boring and, especially with a 10k-word one, tread carefully.
I disagree here too. Sure, there are instances where people are going to skip over prologues because they are impatient. I know my tendency when reading is to skip over long descriptive passages and get straight to where I see something actually happening. But then the other half of the world that wants to read prologues will get what they want out of them You say they can't help. I would argue that sometimes a prologue works to make the story better than not including it at all. If it's a boring prologue, then it's a boring prologue and I probably would've been just as bored as if it were chapter 1. But if it's interesting and sets up the story, then I'm glad they put it there. I'm not an expert on writing, but I've certainly read a lot of books and I vote Yes when it comes to prologues from a reader's perspective if it's done right.
I just started reading Val McDermid's "The Mermaids Singing", which has a prologue of four pages, and it rocks. Pure genius. And yep, a proper prologue, exposition of the past, of the development of the serial killer who's the antagonist. It simply rocks! I've read good and boring prologues but never one I wouldn't read.
That's true: a good and necessary prologue will help and not including it is a bad idea. I know they're out there; I've read them. Where I don't think it would help is when you go to an editor or an agent and say here's the first part of my manuscript; it's a prologue. They may not care, but they may. In a case that they do, it's not a good sign. I don't know how many editors and agents don't like them, but I wouldn't want to run the risk of sending one a prologue when a prologue wasn't necessary. But, of course, if it needs to be there, then it needs to be there. It's not a manuscript death warrant, no. What I want to say is if a prologue can be avoided or if a story is equally good with or without it, avoid it. You may just get one go on your manuscript, so don't risk it sending a prologue to an anti-prologue agent when that prologue didn't need to be there. I can't say all prologues are bad or that you should never ever ever use a prologue. No prologues come to mind (except movie prologues such as the Magneto scene in the first X-Men, which was necessary for characterization), but I don't want them banned forever. I've used one before (although, in my case, it turned out to be a bad one but the story was abandoned anyway), but just that the decision should be treated with care. I'm sorry if I seem so anti-prologue. I'm more of a prologue cautionary.
