Okay, I was brainstorming ideas and came up with a two plot story that will eventually merge to one plot. But then the thought happened... I need two prologues! Can that done? If it can, how? Do you like add prologue one then two, or do you just put them in the same prologue? I am so questioned...
Neil Gaiman had two prologues in Neverwhere, and I must admit, I'm not a fan of them. No reason why you shouldn't try them, I just see it as a waste to even have a prologue unless it develops the main character's persona. And most of the time prologues give away too much of the story by 'foreshadowing' and I for one like to be kept in the dark; I don't like books that foreshadow events as I end up guessing them anyway, so I like to be kept in the dark as much as possible. For me that is just more fun as the novel could go anywhere.
Well, yeah. Just write "First Prologue" over one and "Second" over the other. However you want to. You have to take the initiative with these types of questions. Don't ask how, just do it. If it works, then fine. If it doesn't, try again some other time. You're asking a question of style. You've got to write it how you like it. If you ask too many people, they're going to probably say no. But if you give someone a written book instead of an idea, and they read the book, they're not going to care whether the prologues are combined under one header "Prologue" or "First" and "Second." If they're like me, they probably won't even remember the prologue.
I'd re-examine your "need" for a prologue. Most are completely unnecessary, especially if they are intended to present backstory.
I agree with Cogito, I'm not sure when you say you "need" two prologues at all. If you already have them written, I'd consider merging them or ditching them. If the two plots are intertwined, it can give too much away if you have a prologue. If they're not just intertwined, but, for example, two characters in the same world, same story, they know each other, etc., I would think about merging the prologues. It seems to me that prologues are best used when they give information that the reader needs but that isn't otherwise appropriate to introduce during the story. The best example I can think of is a prologue to introduce the world and the "rules" of a fantasy or science fiction story - The characters are already going to know that the dwarves live in the mountains, for example, but the reader will not, so a prologue can let them in on such elements. Probably the best prologue I've ever read was in the Dragonlance chronicles, because that beginning chapter is absolutely needed for the contrived beginning to work (I'm a huge dragonlance fan so no flames for that, but come on guys, admit it, it's a VERY contrived beginning) and the character introduced in the prologuge, his role and his importance isn't fully revealed until the very end of the last book of the trilogy. But was that prologue needed, really? Well, no. The beginning was contrived anyway, dropping the prologue wouldn't have hugely hurt the story. I'm not sure I've ever read a book where there absolutely MUST be a prologue for the story to work - actually, the more I think about it, the more that sounds like a flawed model.
Yep, you don't need a single prologue never mind two. But if you're a prologue kind of guy then feel free, but I would strongly advise you to merge them as some people look at the amount of chapters and groan (I don't understand it, but some people do) and even if you don't have many chapters, two prologues could hit someone very hard if they're like that.
It occurs to me that if they're short, you could have one prologue split into two parts, using the "#" on a line by itself technique.
It's your book, so really, you can do whatever you want. If you feel the need for two prologues, then write it out, take a look at it, and decide what you think of it. I have to say, I agree with those who have said that prologues aren't usually necessary. I'm not a big fan of them, so my advice would be that if you can write it without a prologue, you should; however, if you like the way your prologues work with your story, keep them. It's not about what works for other books or what people have come to expect from prologues-it's about what works for your story.
Historically, a literary "prologue" used a character to convey some sort of expectation from within the story. It was not narrative provided by the author to tell back story or establish setting. This "modern" misuse of the "prologue" violates the historic form of this literary tool that has been around as far back as Chaucer's Canterbury Tales in the 14th century. From that perspective, it has become the hallmark of weak writing, a place where literary incompetence reveals itself. What happened to the "prologue"? Prologue originated in theater, Greek theater, in particular. Each play opened with narration, usually by a deity, preparing the audience to understand the ensuing drama or comedy. Over time, the prologue evolved into introduction by an actual character within the play, helping to usher the audience from reality into the fantasy world of the story. Modern versions of the literary prologue, honored this tradition, opening many fiction stories with thoughts or actions of a character, thereby nurturing expectation in the reader. I am a fan of the traditional prologue. Fortunately, the end of the prologue, much like rumors of Mark Twain’s death, may be greatly exaggerated. Change, it must, but the old style literary prologue can survive. What form will it take? Is there a chance it may return to its former prominence? Will literary snobbery even give it a chance? Which publishers will show the business courage to allow prologues back into print? These questions have yet to be answered, but the time honored tradition of character-driven prologue remains as compelling today and it ever was. There is nothing as exciting as a voyeuristic peek into a story that you are thinking about purchasing. For this reason, the prologue is likely to make a comeback. A well written prologue is the best marketing tool possible for a fiction story. When a book store browser reads that three paragraph prologue, the sale is imminent if the reader is caught by the bait. Weak writing will include back-story and/or setting in a prologue. Strong writing will use the opportunity to snare the reader's attention with a key three to five paragraph excerpt featuring the main character. As far as multiple prologues, I feel that is overkill and I doubt it will get past most editors. In fact, it may label you as an inexperienced writer and, fairly or unfairly, prevent you from even being considered by many literary agents.
In complete agreement with Saulty concerning the modern use of the prologue. It tends to say to me, "I didn't manage to tell the story well during the telling of the story, so here's the stuff you need in order to fill the holes I left in the plot."
I didn't know that was the original purpose of a prologue! I think every author i've read recently was doing it wrong, lol
Wow, I had no idea prologues weren't that liked. I guess I just won't have any. (I really don't care.)
yup! what do you think you need to put in what you're calling a 'prologue' which may not actually be one?... and why do you think you need to do that?... why does it have to be a 'prologue' and not just the first chapter?
Personally, I am not a big fan of prologues and have been trying to take them out of my work. They aren't necessary to the plot. Usually I'll write one just to keep it on hand to remind myself what exactly I'm working towards (as prologues nowadays do tend to over-foreshadow events). If you need to use two prologues, use them both. If you later go over your story/novel and realize you don't really need them, take them out. It's really that easy. ~Lynn
This might just be me, but I really don't like prologues. If I flipped through a few pages of a book I wasn't sure on and saw not one but two... Just write one if necessary.
I know this is a dead thread. However, if anyone is listening... I don't understand the near resentment expressed by some; what's wrong with a well crafted, well founded 'Prologue'? A prologue can be a narrative of a normal person observing an anomaly, and can set the stage where the drama happens -- a datum of sorts. A prologue can also look at the context of the story from a completely different perspective, say, a common man's perspective, while the rest of the story could be from a law-enforcer's PoV. A prologue can also be a scene that doesn't make sense until it is connected in the final chapter or maybe the connection evolves in the reader's mind as the story progresses, leading to great satisfaction. There are many uses for prologue, and I personally don't see anything wrong with one or two prologues. Some posts here almost sound like 'I will be okay if you title the section as Chapter 1, instead of Prologue.' Well.
There's nothing wrong with a well crafted prologue. Most just don't fit that bill. They're creation stories, histories, that sort of thing. Unnecessary, and they're not going to hook most readers and keep them reading. One of the best prologues I've read was in A Game of Thrones. For one, it's a dramatized scene rather than a steaming infodump. Two, it makes it very clear that a looming threat--the Others--is absolutely real. The way Martin mimics real life with fantastical stories and rumors that have no basis in reality, if you skipped the prologue, you couldn't be sure they were anything more than ghost stories for children until the next book. I normally don't like prologues, but I decided to do one for the novel I'm working on, for similar reasons to AGOT. Along with kicking off a major subplot, it gives an early hint that one of the antagonistic groups (a populist community watch/rebel group) isn't as squeaky clean as they first appear to be.
Thanks for your reply! Ah, histories and back stories. I believe they should become a part of the main story itself, being revealed as and when needed; so I agree completely. That is a misuse of a good prologue. My prologue has no 'telling' at all, but only scenes, mostly fast paced. I guess most of them who dislike prologues have had the experience of reading many an essay-styled writeup. But when someone says they dislike prologues, it sounds like a hasty generalisation. For me, any chapter has to have a need to be present in the novel, prologue or not. Your prologue sounds interesting. You are the writer, you know best; however I thought of this: maybe, in the prologue, you could also consider revealing just a few characters and not identify the antagonist group, but let that come out of the main story? I guess prologues are badly understood by lots of writers; even so, skipping a prologue is a presumptuous. If the story has two plot threads, I believe, even two prologues can work, provided they are crafted well, and make the story that much more interesting. A simple hair plait/braid needs the dance of three strands.
That's exactly what I did. The POV character of the prologue, an assassin on a mission to assassinate the city's elected monarch, name drops her employer "the Heart" a few times in her internalizations and dialogue. So when the Heart appears at the end of Act 1, astute readers will be able to put the pieces together.
Yes. Prologues are for something the reader needs to know before they start reading the main story. It's usually an important incident, by the way, not a world history. Often the incident is something the POV characters in the main story are NOT aware of, so there is no way to 'fit this information in' somewhere else. Think in terms of this: will the reader be able to follow the story correctly and get the same things out of it without the prologue? If the answer is no, then a prologue is probably a good idea. As your example points out, the reader knowing that the Others are real—despite the fact that the main characters think the Others are legends—is vital for the reader to understand the story as it unfolds. If the reader also believes the Others are just legends, then why worry, eh? The reader will be aware that the consequences of the issue in a prologue WILL impact on the story at some point. It's kind of like Chekov's famous gun. We know it's there, and we're just waiting for somebody to snatch it and fire it. So this builds suspense. However, it's tempting sometimes, to think a reader needs to know the entire history of the world before starting to read a story. This is where it can all go upsy daisy, and where prologue-haters get their ammunition from—the info-dump. It's tricky to get a prologue right, but worth it when you do. And as @Shoshin Samurai said, skipping a prologue out of habit is presumptuous on the part of the reader. A person who refuses to read prologues is assuming the author doesn't know how to tell a story and that they've written something unnecessary. Mistake.
Prologues are so tricky to get right that they’re very often bad. For a new writer, I think it’s a mistake to start with something that many experienced writers have failed to master. The word “prologue” can be used as an excuse for committing writing sins that the writer might hesitate to commit in a simple “Chapter 1”. For a reader, if that reader gets used to seeing the word “prologue” associated with bad writing, they’re likely to shy away.
I could imagine this to be a very interesting approach. One idea that springs to mind is to present a dairy entry from each plot from the two most prominent characters. You could even weave in some hint where their paths may cross in the future. It may even be worth inserting a little dairy-like entry at certain junctures in the narrative to add anticipation with clues about how these two threads of story may, or may not meet. If you do this can suggest one thing and do another, leaving the reader down dead ends and surprising them with misdirection. I say “dairy” but you could present such a thing in many different ways. Newspaper articles, reports, weather forecasts ... really depends upon the world you’re working within.
Or, the narrator might be the kind'a guy who knows where to look; no, not necessarily an omniscient narrator, but just the guy who has been in the places where related events occurred. The narrator knows best, right? I mean, he is the narrator, after all.
Well, prologues cannot be forced. If the scene doesn't fit into the storyline or is an interesting event that makes the reader ask, "What the hell is happening?!", I think that is a good prologue. I've always been comfortable with a prologue, and I look forward to reading them; they are like a sneak peek into something that validates the presence of a narrator (without whom there is no story). I don't understand why a writer would be comfortable to commit writing sins in either the prologue or any other chapter. If I see a bad writing in the prologue, I don't skip the prologue, I skip the book.
I don't think I've ever actually seen a prologue that was just an infodump or backstory. My issue with prologues is that they signal to me the writer's not playing for keeps yet. Whatever character the prologue is about probably isn't the main character, so I'm reluctant to get attached. So something else has to be really great to draw me in--the writing itself, or an interesting setting, or conflict I can't look away from. Possibly the strangest feedback I've ever gotten on my writing was from an editor who read one of my novels and said "This is one book that actually needs a prologue." The really weird thing was that it came after he said the worldbuilding was so complicated it was hard to follow--so, basically he was implying I needed the infamous infodumpy kind of prologue. HUH? (It was mostly a very encouraging and complimentary rejection, so I nonetheless have a favorable impression of this editor. )
