Probably because those books don't get published, or disappear into the abyss of the 5,000,000+ sales ranks on Amazon if self-published. I saw plenty of them in my time as part of an online critique group, and from skimming the openings of self-published novels. One of those novels is particularly memorable because the first chapter was actually pretty interesting, but I only read it because I vaguely knew the author. If I'd picked up the book sight-unseen, I wouldn't have read even three pages into the boring, infodump prologue before giving up. Back on the original topic, even if ten years late, a Clive Cussler novel I read a few months back had two prologues, which I found rather weird at the time, but they did eventually fit into the story. I think it's something I'd avoid unless absolutely necessary.
I've seen quite a few of them that are infodumps or backstories. I skip those books, not just the prologue alone. But I disagree on the 'writer not playing for keeps' part; he has written the whole damn book isn't it? He decides how best he wants to tell the story, while the reader decides if the writing is worth reading, prologue or not. Yes, the prologue might not be about the main character(s) or have anything to do with them at all, and sure, it could narrate a conflict essential to the story. However, I don't read for the sake of the good writing alone (for me, no writing is good if it doesn't have a reason to exist) and the setting is a story by itself when written well. All your arguments are valid for any chapter in the book, not just the prologue. Prologues are powerful tools, if employed well. Lol, you wouldn't know if the prologues are absolutely necessary if you don't read them, would you? Or do you go back to the prologue from somewhere in between the reading?
Personally I find prologues are given a much worse reputation than they deserve. A lot of prologues may be considered bad or badly written, but the opposite is also true where a lot of prologues were well written. Perhaps it is just the bad that we remember here. In my case, I have a prologue that establishes one of the main characters. Whilst it contains some info, it is fairly sporadic and neither the main plot or main antagonist are references in there. Without it, I think that this main character would not be understood and because it happens years before the setting of the main story, it is difficult to include in the story without breaking the flow. That is why I deemed it necessary to have a prologue. The point I am trying to make, don’t worry too much about whether or not the prologue is any good. Write it, perhaps get some feedback on it. At best, it will be a prologue on a literary masterpiece level. At worst it will be a hopefully useful writing exercise that you will not include in the story. So no real loss either way.
I think one of the problems with prologues is that many new writers (especially Fantasy writers) think that's an automatic way to begin a story or saga. They've invested so much time and effort into worldbuilding that they want to show their readers all the stuff that enchants them about their world. Unless these worldbuilding prologues are extremely well-written (and these can be fun, by the way) they are probably best avoided. By the writer, NOT the reader. The reader needs to trust the author. If a prologue is there, the reader really needs to read it, because that's the way the author chose to start the story. Rather than being a waste of time—as many people assume it can be—a prologue can actually help cut to the chase. If, for example, a reader needs to know why a character behaves the odd way they do, a prologue can quickly establish this. If the writer had to 'include' this information in the body of the story instead, or make it all come clear in a big 'reveal' at some point, there could be an awful lot of faff—flashbacks, references to things that happened in the past, interactions that make the person's personality emerge, statements from other characters, etc. While there is merit in this approach for some stories, it can not only be a waste of story time but also risks the reader missing the point. Perhaps the story isn't about discovering why a person is the way they are. Instead, it's about watching how the person's behaviour impacts on the present. A prologue means the readers already know the reason why the odd character behaves as he does. They quickly move on. Okay, a reader may end up not liking a story or the writer's choice of story mechanics, but that can happen whether the book has a prologue or not. You do need to read what the author has written before making that judgment. Trust the author. Play the game by their rules, and make the value judgment afterwards, not beforehand. I stick to this mantra: A prologue contains an incident or issue the reader MUST know about BEFORE they begin reading the 'present' story. If the reader doesn't know about this incident or issue, then they will get off on the wrong foot and focus on the wrong things. This is why I have to shake my head when folks assume a prologue isn't necessary and refuse to read them out of principle. While many an info-dump prologue has soured some people on prologues, I think some resistance also comes from people who assume a prologue is some kind of preface or 'forward.' Prefaces or forwards CAN be skipped and/or read later on, as they usually deal with issues about the author, or how and why the book was written, or how it fits into history, etc. Prefaces or forwards are not part of the story itself. They're an essay about the story or the author, and are often not even written by the author. A prologue, however, is a necessary part of the story. And yes, books containing them are still being written and traditionally published.
Yes, prologues deserve better reputation -- but we also need to wonder why prologues came into this bad reputation in the first place. Coming to your prologue, you are the writer and you know best. But, I have these questions to ask (For now, I am assuming the MC is male, singular): A. Why do you need a prologue to establish a MC? Can't the MC be just the guy who does what he does, irrespective of his past? B. Can't this past be not integrated into the storyline when someone, say another character, wonders why the MC does what he does? C. Since your prologue has nothing to do with the main plot or the antagonist, it seems like a character sketch. Can't this character trait be shown in the main plot itself? D. To me, it sounds like you don't need a prologue, but, maybe you do; I am merely asking the questions you might have asked yourself. All the best with your work! Oh, I agree with your on that. Imagine if JKR had written a prologue: a scene that happens in Hogwarts -- the experience of discovering the world would have been watered down. A little confused. You say a prologue can cut to the chase, but also say it will build faff and that the story should be about how the character's behaviour impacts the present ( I also want to add that the story events could evolve the character too). Maybe, the reason for the character's traits are not more important than traits themselves; I believe, a character trait reasoning prologue can take away from the plot and the pace or the main story. Say, a chapter's beginning has a date-time stamp and location, the scene or an event can still be a chapter -- that is, if the story follows some kind of chronological order. A prologue can do many more things: A prologue can zoom in and showcase a detailed view of a conflict in the plot, create a hook, can zoom out and give a bird's eye view of something, hell, it can even have a different narrator's tone. But yes, maybe a scene set off in a completely different timeline could work better in a prologue. Bottomline: a prologue, if written, is better read.
I became a little too verbose here, and my meaning didn't come out clearly, did it? What I said was NOT having a prologue can result in a lot of faff: I agree with your last statement. A prologue, if written, is better read. It doesn't make sense to automatically skip chapters, does it? And a prologue IS a chapter. I don't mind if people decide they don't want to read prologues. That's their choice. What annoys me is when folk try to tell new writers that prologues are not 'necessary.' Of course they aren't necessary for every story, but they are a great tool and should not be so lightly discarded. And many stories with prologues DO get traditionally published today as well. The trick is to learn what a prologue can do for your story (besides put certain readers off!) and then learn how to write good ones.
Hear, hear... Well said! This is a reason why I like the academic approach most literary fiction readers take. Read the damn prologue!! Well, looks like there is a need for a 'literature appreciation' education for readers. lol BTW, what do you mean when you say 'traditionally published'? Are you talking about the traditional practice of publishing prologues when needed or do you mean they are more seen in the traditional paper publishing? And I like that last statement. (ChickenFreak's).
