Like anything else, make it interesting, and I don't care. I've not myself found much use for them (much more use for epilogues, personally), but I ain't gonna chuck a book cause it has one either.
Yeah, there are threads all over the place on this. One group doesn't like them, another group does, a third doesn't care one way or the other. All I can say is that prologues are like any other part of the writing - it's either needed or not, well-written or not. They are not inherently evil, unnecessary, or the death knell of a story.
I am using a prologue for the book I am currently writing. The story has is a mildly paranormal, fatalistic theme. The MC is told randomly, by a psychic, that the fate of three girls depends on a decision she makes. Saving them will require her to make a personal sacrifice. I wrote the prologue to describe the desperate situation one of the girls is in. I felt that this would help the reader to want the MC to make the altruistic choice.
In my opinion they can be great to really drag the reader into the story, especially if you feel that your first chapter don't offer as much action and/or you don't present the story in the way you feel is necessary. Take Dan Brown for example. Don't he always use prologues to give you an understanding of what the book is really about? His first chapters are usually dull, so his prologues work very well in his favour if you ask me.
A prologue shouldn't be used as a substitute for a poorly written first chapter. The prologue should be a well-written and necessary part of the book. The first chapter should be as well-written as the rest of the book. If there's a problem with engaging the reader in the first chapter, writing a prologue should not be the solution. Rewriting the first chapter should be.
Like Cogito said, never use the prologue for a history or geography lesson. If I wanted to learn history, I'd go pick up a history book; if I wanted to learn about geography, I'd watch science documentaries that discuss all the various aspects of geography. To be honest, I like to dive into the story. If your character is an orphan, don't stop me so you can show me his parents getting killed years prior. Let me enter the story and discover, on my own, why he's an orphan and how he deals with it. Don't tell me the history or the geography of the world. Let me gradually learn this from the characters themselves in their action and dialogues.
For the most part, I agree with others that it's the quality of the writing that is important, not the presence of a prologue or lack thereof. However, it's also important to note that a surprising number of people simply skip past prologues. I find this a little odd as I tend to assume that if a writer puts in a prologue it's because it is important to the plot. However, I have known a number of people who claim to ignore prologues on principle and would thus tend to avoid using them unless I felt that including one was absolutely necessary for the story in question.
If it was important to the plot, it should have been chapter one. Let me give an example of why prologues are usually bad. I critiqued an unpublished novel a year or two back. The prologue set up an interesting character, put him through some interesting situations and created some interesting questions. Then killed him. So I'd spent about a dozen pages becoming interested in a character and his life, but that character would never appear in the rest of the book. If I'd been reading it in a book store it would have gone straight back on the shelf.
Have to disagree. Something that is important to the plot can occur anywhere in the story, for one thing. For another, prologues impart information that add understanding and appreciation of the plot, the characters, the whole situation of the story. There are always going to be prologues which some readers/editors/agents feel were unnecessary. Those same prologues will be considered essential by others. There are people who automatically skip them, and others who will always read them. Prologues are not, in and of themselves, unnecessary or badly written. ETA: Seems I'm repeating myself. Oh well...
But a prologue only comes at the start. Either it's important to the story, and should be chapter one, or it's not and should probably be left out. There are writers whose prologues I always read, such as Clive Cussler when I still read his books. But in that case, the prologue was an interesting story in its own right and it was more like a bonus short story at the start. Most prologues I see in unpublished novels are attempts to push extra information into the book that the writer was unable or unwilling to put in the right place.
I like prologues which have hints of mysteries in them, but I agree that most prologues are just not necessary. It is irritating when writers use prologues as some kind of quick-fix solutions for problems like back-story info, setting descriptions etc.
Why does it need to be Chapter One if it's important? A prologue is not the first chapter. It is information, important to the story, which occurs at a separate time or place to the rest of the story, and needs to be read before the rest in order to give the reader that extra insight for a full understanding and appreciation of the events/characters/plot of the story. Just because people have read a few bad prologues does not make them bad. It's like saying one has eaten some wormy apples, so no one should eat apples - or if they do, they should call them oranges.
Because chapter one is where the story starts. Prologues are similar to voiceovers in movies; sometimes a voiceover works as part of the movie's style, but normally it's included because the test audience don't understand the movie so the director has to tag it on to explain what the heck the movie is about. Similarly, prologues sometimes work but are normally an attempt to cover up holes in the story that the writer isn't skilled enough to fill properly. You don't read that many bad prologues in trade-published books because most unpublished books with bad prologues remain unpublished.
I would submit that if they remain unpublished, there's more reason than a bad prologue. And, as you note, you don't see that many bad prologues in trade-published books, so I'm at a loss as to the animosity toward them.
Hi all, so I have had this story in my head for a long time, and I finally decided to attempt to put it in to words. I will admit I am fairly new to writing, but it's something I have always wanted to do. I really need some advice regarding the Prologue issue. I know a lot of people say they are completely pointless and not to have them, but I'm not really sure if in my situation that is the case. The way I have it set up now is that the prologue is the background on a character who dies almost immediately in the beginning of the story. It is written from his point of view, with his thoughts leading up to his death. I have cut down this part of the story to about 2500 words, but cannot cut it down anymore because all of this information is vital to the storyline. I thought about just doing this as a first chapter, but I thought it would be confusing to the reader to start out as a character who dies, then change over to the other characters in the second chapter. Could anyone please give me their thoughts on this? Thanks in advance
Prologues can work really well, in this situation, but aren't always necessary. Why don't you write the whole story (finish it!) and then when you come to edit it (or do the second draft, whatever) see what works the best (I find I can spend forever trying to get the beginning of a story right and then never finishing it!).
I agree with the advice to write the story, then decide. I very strongly suspect that with more practice writing, you'll discover that you really don't need the prologue. It's hard to accept that the reader doesn't need everything explained, and it's even harder to become skilled in revealing information gradually and unobtrusively as the story goes on. But I'd bet that you can acquire the skill and work out how to avoid the prologue.
The idea for your prologue doesn't sound that bad - but it really depends on how long the time period between the character's death and the start of the main story. It should be a significant time span. I would keep it for now, as you're still writing the story, but see if this information can fit naturally in the main story. Don't try to force it, but it may be that you find the exact place for it as you writer further. I wouldn't treat any prologue as something to be avoided if possible, but rather make sure that it really is a prologue and really does benefit the story.
Writing should come naturally if the idea is fresh in your brain: if it feels right to have a prologue, you should put one in. The best judge of your writing is yourself
avoid labeling any beginning to a book a 'prologue'... there's rarely any good reason for not just calling it the first chapter... and definitely avoid using one as an info dump...
Have to strongly disagree with this. If it's a legitimate prologue, it cannot be called the first chapter. If it can be legitimately called the first chapter, it is not a true prologue. They are not the same thing.
But if it cannot be legitimately called the first chapter, does it really belong there in the first place? Probably not. That isn't absolute, but my experience is that most stories with prologues would be as good or better without.
Prologues belong at the beginning of the book, before the first chapter - yes. That's what prologues are. As to whether most stories are as good or better without them - my experience has been just the opposite. I think it really depends on one's opinion of prologues in general - if one doesn't like them, they won't be seen as needed. I prefer to read what the author writes without preconceived notions about any of the book's parts.
