The main qualm I would have about your prologue is the short time span between it and the first chapter. Typically prologues occur a significant amount of time prior to the events in the first chapter. Also, a good prologue should give some insight into the tone of the story, or give the reader information the characters in the main story won't have (I love prologues that do that!). Using it to introduce the characters doesn't sound like the best use, IMO.
Just a couple quick comments (as I'm heading off to bed)... What the OP is describing does, unfortunately, sound like a massive infodump - the worst reason to have a prologue. If it's included at all, I'd make it more of an appendix, written in the same style as the book, but one that could be referenced if the reader chose to do so. At the same time, the more pertinent information it contained (which the reader has to have to make sense of the events in the story itself) should be woven into the story as it progresses. As to the difference between an introduction and a prologue - I like mamma's cited definition of an intro, but disagree totally on the prologue's. A prologue is most definitely not the same as the introduction, and I've read a lot of books with prologues and no epilogues, and vice versa. Last, I agree with Jannert and Obsidian as far as the subterfuge and misunderstandings about prologues. As far as readers who skip them - well, that's their loss. Heck, as long as they bought the book, who cares if they read any of it?
Eh... I'm not really writing for profit. If my goal were money, I'd do something else--my understanding is that the odds of making serious money from writing are very low, even if you do get published. I'd be surprised if the average published author earned as much as minimum wage if you divided their total earnings on the book by the total hours that they put into it. But I am writing to be read. And readers read when they're interested. If I want readers, and I write whatever pleases *me*, without any particular effort to interest the reader, then it seems to me that I'm putting myself above the reader. It seems to me that I'm saying that I shouldn't have to spend my time making my writing more interesting for them, but they should spend the time to dig into my writing and burrow through the boring parts and find the message that I, in my eternal wisdom, have deigned to provide. No, I'm not saying that that's what you're saying. But that's how I'd feel if I didn't make pleasing the reader a very, very important part of the craft. If I didn't want readers, I wouldn't feel that way--it would be fine to write purely to please me. But I do want them.
I don't have much time to really personally respond to anyone's responses here at the moment, but thank you all for the advice. How the story will actually turn out is quite another factor, and I need only write it. I guess that what I was really asking was how to get over my cold feet... and now I have some ideas about how to approach it. Again, thank you all so much for taking the time to respond to a n00by question.
No such thing a newby question when it comes to writing. We all excel at different parts in story writing and even the best authors probably have a part or two where they gotta work on more.
I think that would be a bad idea. The first couple of chapters should be used to introduce the audience the characters and the setting. This allows the audience to get to know your characters and connect with them not only on an emotional level, but on a mental and physical level as well. This makes it so that the audience will care more about what happens to the characters in later chapters.
I've got to agree with this... except for the underlined portion. *Relative newbie shakes in her boots, despite having given the subject matter an extreme amount of thought.* @Cogito What if the if the Prologue does cut straight to the heart of of the story, and sets up the theme? I'm starting to get a little sensitive, given that I'm presently on a short break from writing one of my own. Despite the voiced negatives, my gut is telling me it's the way to go. I feel I have valid reasons for not opening with Chapter One. For me the only delay, is the time it takes to read it, and I think it's balanced out by the sense of anticipation it will provoke. To me, my Prologue is the hook. You have no idea how encouraged I am by what you've said. What you look for in a good Prologue is the very thing I'm trying to create. It appears on this we have similar tastes. I've deliberately put the reader in the know, and provided a great deal of subtle foreshadowing, so that when the ripples start becoming waves, the reader will be anticipating the consequences. I'm hoping the reader will be reading through their fingers, unable to put it down until they see how it all pans out.
It is still a delay in entering the story. If it were the actual story, it wouldn't be relegated to the prologue. There can be benefits from the prologue that outweigh the negatives of a delayed entry. In my opinion, those benefits are rare, Others will disagree with me, and that's fine too. As long as you actually weigh the advantages against the disadvantages, and don't simply assume that a prologue is automatically a good idea.
@Cogito Thanks for that. I certainly haven't just assumed. I've weighed up the pros and cons very seriously. When I first joined up here, my wanting to do the 'right thing' led me down a path of blind acceptance, but now I've come to the conclusion, there is no one 'right way' to look at things. Every idea must be explored before making a decision. It's only because I feel I'm starting to develop a sense of style, and realising that some ways of going about things suit my voice better than others, I'm prepared to breach that particular way of thinking. I was a bit staggered when I realised that my story perfectly fitted the classic—Prologue, Act I, Act II, Act III and an Epilogue—structure. Hardly original, but, if the shoe fits, no point in squeezing into a pair of undersized pumps, just because they are more fashionable.
I've sometimes seen a "normalcy" scene that isn't *normal*, that is, isn't some boring everyday events, but is a smaller crisis than the core crisis of the book. For example, in Battlestar Galactica, the opening is about Galactica being shut down and made into a museum, an event that is a big deal and a big life change for the commander and crew. It lets us get to know characters and their relationships a little faster than average, as we see them in a "goodbye" environment rather than a normal everyday one, but nevertheless an environment that isn't high-speed crisis. Plus, of course, it allows the writers to sneak in some background, because the Galactica is being shut down due to the (believed) elimination of the Cylon threat. (This specific aspect would be harder in writing - on TV, I think that some long speeches can be more easily tolerated.) It also sets up one of my favorite exchanges of the whole series, after the big attack begins: Tyrol: ...The biggest problem is getting them over to the port launch bay. Starbuck: Why can't we use the starboard launch? Tyrol: It's a gift shop now. Adding concerns and crises separate from the core crisis of the story can also add good depth and texture to a story.
I'm editing my book and it has a prologue. This is not told from the perspective of one of the MCs but a minor character and it gives flavor, a tiny bit of background and whets the readers appetite (hopefully) with some action before the book begins. The book then begins with introducing the main characters and the start of the issues they will face (not all of them but at least a taste.) My problem now is that I can't decide whether or not to change the prologue into a first chapter by lengthening it or just leave it as it is. I have read several writing guides that advice extreme caution if you decide to have a prologue and now I'm just not sure. What are your thoughts?
If there's a way to get rid of the prologue, and if your goal is traditional publication, I'd get rid of the prologue. It's not so much that there's anything wrong with prologues, but there ARE some people in the industry who are quite against them, and why discourage these people's interest if you don't have to? That said, I'm not sure the best way to get rid of the prologue is to turn it into a first chapter. Would it be possible to weave the background and flavour into the rest of the story, as you go and as it's needed?
Hmm. If it's labelled as a first chapter, then the reader might get cozy with the minor character, and be disappointed when it turns out she isn't a heroine. Prologues are often condemned because they can be a trudge through dense exposition, but that's just banning apples because some are bad. I suggest you call it what it is, make it as interesting as possible, and get LOTS of feedback on it until it's perefect (the same with any first chapter too, I suppose). George Martin's prologue to the initial GOT book worked very well because we saw conflict and dread from the get go. It can be done.
Agree with Okon. Don't change anything in a story simply because you're afraid "some" agents won't like it or "some" readers won't read it. You aren't going to please everyone. If you've written a true prologue, lengthening won't make it the first chapter - it will just make it a longer prologue. I found this article which, IMHO, gives a pretty good look at writing *good* prologues. http://www.writing-world.com/fiction/prologue.shtml
Keep in mind the prologue/first chapter is the first thing the reader reads. And for some readers, it's all they are going to read if they don't want to turn the page. What matters is not what you call it (it's safer to call it chapter one but in some cases a prologue is best called a prologue), but rather, is it going to be interesting to the reader? You say, "it gives flavor, a tiny bit of background and whets the readers appetite (hopefully) with some action before the book begins." If that is the case, leave it. There is no set rule chapters have to be a certain length so don't worry about that, worry that it is complete. Also, I don't believe readers think the first character they meet must be the protagonist. So that's not really an issue in my opinion either.
Random thoughts: - What would happen if you didn't have the prologue? Would you start with a rather plodding, dry, introductory first chapter that waits too long for something to happen? If so, then the solution is not to add a prologue, but to fix the chapter. The first chapter can't afford to be dull, whether you have a prologue-with-action or not. - It sounds like the prologue introduces the reader to a character, gets them interested in and invested in him/her, and then tears that character away and orders the reader to go do all that work with a main character. It's hard enough to get the reader excited and absorbed and bonded to a character once; why would you take the risk of requiring yourself to do it twice?
I've used prologues if I need/want something to happen before the main events. Instead of starting the chapter with "SEVEN YEARS LATER" or something. At one point I had a prologue where the main character was in a plane crash. That was the start. The first chapter was a while later when he woke up from his coma. I've since removed the prologue as it's not needed. But I see no point in using prologues as info dumps. That's the wrong way to use it.
I have used a prologue in my novel. It is actually one of the final scenes, where the main protagonist squares off against his nemesis. It is a slightly gory scene, and sets the tone for the novel to come. The rest is told as a flashback...
Thank you so much for all your thoughts and comments! That was so very helpful. I think I will keep the prologue as it is. I don't think my first chapter (with my MC) is dull or lacking in flavour, it's just that it starts off with a love story and the prologue gives me a chance to promise the reader non-love-related plot developments later in the story. I'm just trying to keep it a little more balanced as the love story was dominating the first part of the book (and there isn't a smooth way to change that because of the timeline.)
I have a bias against prologues, so take that into consideration. Not that there aren't good ones, but in my view the majority aren't very good. I think there are a couple of potential problems with this one: 1. The reader likes the minor character in the prologue, and is disappointed to jump to someone else in chapter 1. 2. The reader likes the action in the prologue, and is disappointed to find the romance starting in chapter 1. 3. The reader wanted the romance that starts in chapter 1 and is disappointed in the action that starts the prologue. In all three cases, it boils down to an initial representation as one thing (character, type of story, style, or whatever), and then reverses course with chapter 1. Many readers apparently skip prologues (I've done it on occasion, though often I simply don't buy books with prologues and thereby avoid the issue, unless the prologue is very good). For readers skipping the prologue, the issues above may be largely attenuated, but you do run into another problem that is common across prologues: given that readers often skip prologues, if you have anything in the prologue that is crucial to the story it should be repeated elsewhere so that the story isn't harmed for those who didn't read the prologue.
I would say repeat it if it makes sense to do so in the story, but not merely to deal with people who choose to skip prologues. Maybe they'll learn to read the book the author actually wrote.
That's an immature attitude that can only harm the author when those readers post bad reviews or say negative things to other potential readers, things that could have been avoided by simply dealing with the reality that readers sometimes skip prologues.
Readers will post bad reviews or say negative things regardless. That's part of being a writer. As many discussions as there are about "artistic integrity" on this board, it seems close to pandering to tell an author they "should" add something just because one group of readers are too stubborn to read the whole book. "I refuse to read this part so authors should put the information in somewhere else just for me" is the immature attitude.
Of course they will. And if you know of something that might cause such a review ahead of time and can easily remedy it, it makes sense to do so. You're letting your apparent emotional reaction to the idea that someone might not read a prologue cloud whatever sense you have.
