# Prologue vs no Prologue



## CasMerlyn(R) (Sep 4, 2014)

I am aware, from one of my previous postings in fictions that sort of degraded, that most here on the forums seem to be against prologues. 

Why? 

Tolken, Anne Rice, etc., etc. wrote prologues as a means of giving a background to the story without integrating it into the story.


I mean it's stupid to work something that happened a generation ago for example into a story in enough detail that the reader can understand. Flashbacks, the few stories I've read which have them, are more a pain in the ass than anything. 


I am toying with a prologue now - current postings - however, I pause in doing so if the main idea is skip a prologue.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Sep 4, 2014)

I may not continue on with the novel I'm working on as I'm still trying to figure out my style as of yet but I do have a prologue in it. So far I think that's the best part of the WIP. For one thing if you do it right you've got yourself a hook because now the reader (hopefully) is interested in learning the events that led to that prologue. 

If you are talking about doing a prologue set in the past that can work too. Something that had happened before the story can help explain the story you are telling in the present (hope I'm making sense). The best example of that that I can think of is actually a movie and strange if you look at it first 2001 A Space Odyssey. Again if you do it right you have a hook.

Anyway for me a prologue works quite well.


----------



## Nickleby (Sep 4, 2014)

The prevailing attitude in these postmodern times is that stories should provide their own context. I blame television. People want to be shown things, even if they don't make sense, and being told would make the nonsense obvious.

If you believe that your story needs more context than you can provide internally, you must do it externally. That means some kind of introduction or prologue or appendix. I shudder to think what _Lord of the Rings_ would look like if an agent forced Tolkein to rewrite it for today's market. "Cut out all that scenery. It's boring! More romance! More sex! More violence! More explosions!"


----------



## Blade (Sep 4, 2014)

CasMerlyn(R) said:


> I mean it's stupid to work something that happened a generation ago for example into a story in enough detail that the reader can understand. Flashbacks, the few stories I've read which have them, are more a pain in the ass than anything.



That would hit the nail on the head IMHO. It is both easier on the author and showing mercy on the reader to package historical perspective up front rather than try to integrate it in bits and pieces into a narrative entirely removed from its background. As none of the characters live or act in the past the prologue can provide context without obstruction.:eagerness:


----------



## Sam (Sep 4, 2014)

People are against them because they're often used erroneously. A proper prologue introduces a piece of prose that happens prior to the telling of the story, but for certain reasons cannot be included in a first chapter. So, for instance, if someone were to write a story about a husband and wife skiing in Switzerland, that happened six months before the main story, and which catalogued the death of the husband due to a fall, that would be an acceptable use of a prologue. 

But writers don't use them that way. They're predominately used for info-dumping about the world, the character(s), and other things extraneous to the main plot. That's why prologues are, ninety per cent of the time, skipped by readers.


----------



## movieman (Sep 4, 2014)

As a general rule:

Are you Clive Cussler? Yes, include a prologue.
Are you not Clive Cussler? No, do not include a prologue.

Prologues are particularly bad for new writers these days, because Amazon only put 10% of your book in the 'Look Inside' that the potential purchaser can read before they decide whether to buy. If it's all boring backstory, you won't get many sales. I've seen quite a few self-published novels which had  an interesting story when you finally reached it, but I almost didn't reach it  because they put a boring prologue in front of the story.

If you really feel you must include one, a) make it interesting and not just a tedious info-dump, b) make it short, and c) don't include anything the reader actually needs to know, because plenty of people will skip it and go to Chapter One. If the reader actually does need to read it, call it Chapter One instead.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 4, 2014)

The problem with prologues is writers often use them as 'info dumps', a place to put all the backstory they think the reader needs (and usually don't). These sort of prologues tend to be boring and unrelated--except as a matter of history--to the real story.


----------



## Bishop (Sep 4, 2014)

Sam said:


> People are against them because they're often used erroneously. A proper prologue introduces a piece of prose that happens prior to the telling of the story, but for certain reasons cannot be included in a first chapter.



This.

My prologues are usually past events that have direct meaning to the events of the novel proper. For instance, in my first novel, the prologue is the short tale of a ship being attacked and made into a floating derelict. The story proper happens years later, with people seeking out that very wreck. So it has relevance to the story, but is set apart from the main chain of events.

That being said, all my prologues have 'action' to them, and are in their own rights little exciting stories that set off the novel proper.


----------



## Plasticweld (Sep 4, 2014)

A prologue can be anything you want it to be.  My take on this is very different from everyone else's here.  I view it as the description of the person that you are thinking about going on a date with.  You want enough information to know that you are compatible.  Done right your interest is aroused, your anticipation heightened.   I still think the author has to use every available tool to convince the reader to pick your book instead of the other guys.


----------



## ziodice (Sep 4, 2014)

IMO it depends entirely of the story. I generally put a short one in as a hook or not at all, not a background explanation. For background explanation, I like it when the reader learns over time and infers what the world must have been like, especially because it leaves some to the imagination of the reader, which is always nice...until your book gets turned into a movie, that is.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2014)

Some stories are better for having a prologue, others not. Well-written prologues generally follow with well-written stories - poorly written prologues generally follow with poorly-written stories. As to whether most or even many readers skip them - I never even heard of this until I got into writing forums. So maybe it's mostly writers who won't read them...


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 5, 2014)

This question drives me batty.

The Prologue I have written for my novel project isn't, in ANY way, an info dump. What it is, is a sort of "flash forward" that happens just before the climactic scenes of the novel. I use it to do a little bit of foreshadowing. There's no historical info to be found. 

A few people have told me that I should just use that section as Chapter 1. However, for me, it seems like doing so throws things off kilter for some reason. Chapter 1 is the beginniong of the story of how my MC got to the point shown in the Prologue. Then, once he does reach that point, the climax follows.

To prologue or not to prologue? I have no freakin idea.


----------



## Deafmute (Sep 5, 2014)

Prologues are literary devices. Just like metaphors, plot twists, and chiastic structure. Writing is art, and these things are your different paint brushes. Sometimes your vision includes them other times it doesn't. Anyone who tells you any of these are always "bad" is just wrong.


----------



## Pidgeon84 (Sep 5, 2014)

Idk, all I know is that I've tried writing for my first nove and it hasn't worked out at all.


----------



## Sam (Sep 5, 2014)

Deafmute said:


> Prologues are literary devices. Just like metaphors, plot twists, and chiastic structure. Writing is art, and these things are your different paint brushes. Sometimes your vision includes them other times it doesn't. Anyone who tells you any of these are always "bad" is just wrong.



Prologues are fine when used correctly; they're worse than bad when they aren't. 

They aren't always bad, but they are almost always used as an info-dump, which by extension makes them bad.


----------



## CasMerlyn(R) (Sep 5, 2014)

movieman said:


> Are you Clive Cussler? Yes, include a prologue.
> Are you not Clive Cussler? No, do not include a prologue.
> .



Since I've never heard of this Clive Cussler .... if I want the field he apparently writes, I'd prefer Jules Verne, Victor Hugo, Wyss to name a few... Clancy in another scope... I can't really say now can I. 


But then I'm particular with what I read. I have a set mindset and if the book falls below that, I don't even bother past page 2. 


However, looking at modern books I think that'd be my problem. I prefer more to the old classics and early 1980s / 90s than the nowadays stuff [which by majority are fine as a movie, horrid as a book]. 

Hence the weighing of a prologue vs. non prologue and the poll to see what sort of prologue is preferred. 


And yes, I know prologues aren't info dumps. Tolken's LOTR were somewhere between intro and info dumps and I have little intentions of doing something that long.


----------



## ziodice (Sep 5, 2014)

T.S.Bowman said:


> This question drives me batty.
> 
> The Prologue I have written for my novel project isn't, in ANY way, an info dump. What it is, is a sort of "flash forward" that happens just before the climactic scenes of the novel. I use it to do a little bit of foreshadowing. There's no historical info to be found.
> 
> ...



I'm assuming you mean similar to, for example, the beginning of the movie Fight Club? In which it starts at literally the climactic scene and flashes back to the beginning? (And of course, at that scene "Tyler" even makes a flashback joke...) I've always agreed with that form of prologue and that it shouldn't be chapter one.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 5, 2014)

My work-in-progress has a prologue—a family running through a field a night, being chased by men with futuristic weapons.

It's far from an info-dump. It's a scene, first and foremost, and it raises more questions than it provides answers.

Really, the only difference it has from any other scene in my book is that this scene takes place _eleven years before_ the main story. 

That's what makes it a prologue (from Greek: _pro_="before" and _logue_="discourse" or, as I interpret it: "story"). An event (or events) that takes place *before* the *story*.

Personally, I think it's best to _show_ the event(s), rather than _tell_. This way your backstory unfolds as a scene (or scenes) that the reader can experience, instead of a disconnected authorial aside. Or, like Sam, Terry, and Bishop pointed out, this is a way to avoid the dreaded info-dump.

It's kind of like a time machine. You transport the reader back in time to wherever the significant event is, and then you let them witness it unfold (PROLOGUE). Then you hop back in your time capsule and leap forward in time to the present story (CHAPTER ONE).

That's how I like to handle it, anyway. :encouragement:

Oh, and I like to title my prologues with a _date_ and _location_, instead of the more generic, "Prologue." I find this helps sneak by the readers who automatically skip prologues.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 5, 2014)

In my first book I used a prologue to introduce a character, and an artifact, which would be critical to the plot much later on. I didn't want to introduce them at the climax of the book and have the reader think, "Where the hell did_ that_ come from?" It also allowed me to keep the pace of the book moving when I did bring them on-stage at that critical time. Between the prologue and the climax I have a brief scene with the character to remind the reader that this guy is out there, and to create a bit of suspense. I probably could have worked the prologue into the first chapter as it happens concurrently with the rest of the book's action, but I felt it was isolated enough to warrant its own section. I like Kyle's idea of using a date and location as a title to hide the fact that it is a prologue.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2014)

Kyle R said:


> Oh, and I like to title my prologues with a _date_ and _location_, instead of the more generic, "Prologue." I find this helps sneak by the readers who automatically skip prologues.





Terry D said:


> I like Kyle's idea of using a date and location as a title to hide the fact that it is a prologue.



I'm just stubborn enough not to want to hide the prologue. First, I've seen no proof that a significant number of readers actually skip them. Second, why should I try to trick readers into reading it? If they're so arrogant as to automatically assume that what I've written will be bad, TS, folks - you'll miss out on the full enjoyment. As long as they already bought the book, I don't really care if they read any of it.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 5, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I'm just stubborn enough not to want to hide the prologue. First, I've seen no proof that a significant number of readers actually skip them. Second, why should I try to trick readers into reading it? If they're so arrogant as to automatically assume that what I've written will be bad, TS, folks - you'll miss out on the full enjoyment. As long as they already bought the book, I don't really care if they read any of it.



I've seen enough discussions on this and other forums to know that there is a significant number of folks who consider themselves writers who skip a prologue. It's not a risky jump to think that number would increase among general readership. I don't write simply to sell (if I did, I'd be wasting my time) so, it does concern me that readers might not be reading what I wrote. Also, by skipping it, they would be missing a significant part of the story and losing a portion of the overall effect--not something I want.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2014)

Terry D said:


> I've seen enough discussions on this and other forums to know that there is a significant number of folks who consider themselves writers who skip a prologue. It's not a risky jump to think that number would increase among general readership. I don't write simply to sell (if I did, I'd be wasting my time) so, it does concern me that readers might not be reading what I wrote. Also, by skipping it, they would be missing a significant part of the story and losing a portion of the overall effect--not something I want.



Considering that many people (across forums) have stated they had never heard of this phenomemon until reading writers' forums, I'm still not convinced that this prejudice carries over significantly to readers in general. As to wanting readers to actually read one's books, of course, one always hopes for that. But once the book is out there, a writer has no more control over the reader than the man in the moon. So if they choose not to read a prologue, it's their loss, not mine. I won't try to fool them into it.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 5, 2014)

It's unfortunate, but yes, a lot of readers skip prologues. Googling the subject, there are many heated debates about it around the web. Some people like them. Some hate them. Some just apathetically skip them.

I did, when I was a reader (before I became a writer). I saw "Prologue" and my mind immediately thought of similar "before the story" additions, like "Preface" and "Introduction"—things that were, in my mind, synonymous with "boring." I wanted to jump right into the story, without any further adieu! So I'd flip ahead in search of "Chapter One." :grief:

Nowadays I enjoy reading the prologues. My younger self hated them, though. It wasn't until I got into writing and learned what a prologue is that I began paying attention to them.


----------



## Terry D (Sep 5, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> Considering that many people (across forums) have stated they had never heard of this phenomemon until reading writers' forums, I'm still not convinced that this prejudice carries over significantly to readers in general. As to wanting readers to actually read one's books, of course, one always hopes for that. But once the book is out there, a writer has no more control over the reader than the man in the moon. So if they choose not to read a prologue, it's their loss, not mine. I won't try to fool them into it.



Of course I can't control what a reader does with my book, but I do care. I know I can lose a reader's interest by beginning with a long, drawn out description of my protagonist waking up, so I don't write that sort of beginning. If I know I can lose readers by planting 'PROLOGUE' after the title page, then, in my mind, it behooves me to find a technique which avoids that situation. It's not "fooling" anyone, it's simply a writing technique. 

By the way, all fiction writing is "fooling" the reader into believing something that is not real.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 5, 2014)

I will always, at the very least, _begin_ to read the Prologue.

Once I start reading, if I see that it's being used as an info dump, I skip it. Unless it's entertaining info. That, however, is very rare.


----------



## ppsage (Sep 5, 2014)

People who skip prologues (and forewords or introductions) aren't readers.


----------



## InstituteMan (Sep 5, 2014)

I am fine with prologues, if done well and properly, which seems a common sentiment here. My personal philosophy currently is to try to write my longer works to not require a prologue, but that is as more an exercise in practicing technique than a dogmatic decision. If I discover I need a prologue, I will happily include one. I certainly don't skip prologues in books I read, although many prologues have managed to convince me that the book I picked up off of a library or bookstore shelf isn't worth my time.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2014)

Terry D said:


> By the way, all fiction writing is "fooling" the reader into believing something that is not real.



There's a difference between "fooling" the reader when they want to be fooled (ie, they want to read fiction) and fooling them without their knowledge. Like people who say you should call the prologue Chapter One - that's not just fooling them. That's lying to them.


----------



## movieman (Sep 5, 2014)

CasMerlyn(R) said:


> Since I've never heard of this Clive Cussler .... if I want the field he apparently writes, I'd prefer Jules Verne, Victor Hugo, Wyss to name a few... Clancy in another scope... I can't really say now can I.



I just picked him as an example, because he's famous for:

1. Always (well, in every book that I read) including a prologue.
2. Not making them essential to the story, so readers can safely skip them.
3. Making them an interesting story in their own right, so most people want to read them anyway.

If you can do all those things, your prologue should be fine. If you can't.... call it Chapter One, or leave it out.

Also, some genres are more tolerant of prologues than others. If it's a thriller or horror novel, I'm more likely to read the prologue than I would a thirty-page info-dump in a fantasy novel.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 5, 2014)

A few months ago, I accidentally skipped the prologue, which was a flash forward that a particular character had died. I liked the actual start. I developed an attachment to the to-be-dead character, which I don't think I would have. (She wasn't that lovable, and who wants to like a character who is going to die?) I liked the suspense of not knowing what had happened to her when she went missing. The second half of the book, trying to find out how she had died, meant something to me because I cared about the character.

Stephen King has a prologue in his latest book, which fits the advice that a prologue can be good. And I wrote the first event in my WIP as a prologue, just because that seemed to fit.


----------



## Sam (Sep 5, 2014)

ppsage said:


> People who skip prologues (and forewords or introductions) aren't readers.



Correct you are: they're smart readers, since many prologues aren't worth the paper they're printed on.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 5, 2014)

Sam said:


> Correct you are: they're smart readers, since many prologues aren't worth the paper they're printed on.



I guess I'm a stupid reader then, because I always read the prologues. Hurray for stupidity! :stupid:


----------



## kyl (Sep 5, 2014)

I say it depends of the circumstances. I've read books in which the prologue felt unnecessary. However, I've also read other books in which the prologue actually improved the quality of the work IMO.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 6, 2014)

ppsage said:


> People who skip prologues (and forewords or introductions) aren't readers.



I guess that would make me one of those that isn't a reader then. Like I said, if it's an info dump..I skip it. 

If the writer needs to do that kind of dump right off the bat then that's on the writer. There are 2 teenagers, a seven year old and a three year old in this house. Along with my girlfriend and a couple of cats and a Black Lab. My time to read is pretty limited and I'm not gonna waste it reading an info dump of what an author thinks I _must_ know.


----------



## shadowwalker (Sep 6, 2014)

Infodumps are bad no matter where they're placed in a story.


----------



## Sam (Sep 6, 2014)

shadowwalker said:


> I guess I'm a stupid reader then, because I always read the prologues. Hurray for stupidity! :stupid:



If Mr ppsage wants to generalise about readers, I'll generalise about prologues.


----------



## Gavrushka (Sep 6, 2014)

I've yet to write a story that needed a prologue, but I've written many prologues, only to delete them later.

If there's an event that happened before the story that enhances the telling, it'll make for a great prologue.

I imagine if I read a prologue that was misused by an author, such as an infodump, I'd not read on as I'd gauge the author unwilling to trust himself/herself to disseminate information organically through the story.


*edit* Ummm, why are 14 guests watching this thread?


----------



## Schrody (Sep 6, 2014)

Gavrushka said:


> *edit* Ummm, why are 14 guests watching this thread?



To decide whether they need a prologue, or not :mrgreen:


----------



## theredbaron (Sep 6, 2014)

To put it simply

You need a prologue is, and really only if, it is a small "info dump" that is unrelated to the main frame of the story directly. 



The largest prologue I ever read was for LOTR and even that I skipped through half of it because it was too much. It could have been cut a bit... but then if it had been would anyone have understood what was the setting without having read the Hobbit or the Silmarillion beforehand. 


But as it was said, if you don't read a prologue you're not much of a reader. Books aren't meant to be movies - and given the garbage being filmed nowadays, thank the gods. 


If you seriously think you can pull off a book without a prologue --- the only way you can do that is if the story is current at time without any backstory. I've read a few of those books and usually either laughed my ass off or fallen asleep they're so boring. 

A prologue - done *properly *- sets the mood / storyline not only for the reader but for the writer.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 6, 2014)

> If you seriously think you can pull off a book without a prologue --- the only way you can do that is if the story is current at time without any backstory.



Nonsense. The narrator has the power to incorporate the story's past into the story's present while keeping the ball rolling; it's what practically every author does, even the rubbish ones. The background comes before the foreground; what the reader needs first is the action and conflict of the story itself.

 The thought that back-story is needed before conflict is what makes many learning writers' first novels a slog at the start. A prologue shouldn't just be a history lesson; if you're going to use one, it should be what hooks the reader into the wider story that you're going to continue into. Perhaps the hero's introduction is effective, but not gripping enough for the first few pages; in that case, introducing us to a different, important character at first who makes a better first impression would allow you to leave that effective first chapter as it is, as opposed to fiddling with it so that it snaps up more of the reader's attention. 

There are lots of other uses, and I've read many incredible pre-chapter-one openings. Sometimes there is a history lesson, but it's given through an exciting series of events so it doesn't feel like a history lesson. You don't want to feel like the author is saying 'well, yes, you've picked up the book, but you need to spend some time learning about it before we can actually let you into the fun stuff'. That's the equivalent of one of those annoying video games that makes you do hours of training before you can start playing the first level. It turns people off, and makes the subsequent 'exciting' bits less fun overall. You might feel more prepared for them, but being unprepared for something is what gives an experience more thrills.


----------



## CasMerlyn(R) (Sep 6, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Nonsense. The narrator has the power to incorporate the story's past into the story's present while keeping the ball rolling; it's what practically every author does, even the rubbish ones. The background comes before the foreground; what the reader needs first is the action and conflict of the story itself.
> 
> The thought that back-story is needed before conflict is what makes many learning writers' first novels a slog at the start. A prologue shouldn't just be a history lesson; if you're going to use one, it should be what hooks the reader into the wider story that you're going to continue into. Perhaps the hero's introduction is effective, but not gripping enough for the first few pages; in that case, introducing us to a different, important character at first who makes a better first impression would allow you to leave that effective first chapter as it is, as opposed to fiddling with it so that it snaps up more of the reader's attention.
> 
> There are lots of other uses, and I've read many incredible pre-chapter-one openings. Sometimes there is a history lesson, but it's given through an exciting series of events so it doesn't feel like a history lesson. You don't want to feel like the author is saying 'well, yes, you've picked up the book, but you need to spend some time learning about it before we can actually let you into the fun stuff'. That's the equivalent of one of those annoying video games that makes you do hours of training before you can start playing the first level. It turns people off, and makes the subsequent 'exciting' bits less fun overall. You might feel more prepared for them, but being unprepared for something is what gives an experience more thrills.




Have you played DMC? Or any of the higher more in demand games. Most of the first person players and war games have some sort of an introduction story to them and yet they make millions. 

If a prologue shouldn't be a history lesson - then why did LOTR, Hobbit, etc. do so well? 


I'm sorry but I'm confused, the mere definition of prologue is literally _a *separate* introductory section of a literary or musical work. 

_
I never read books that jump right into the storyline as they remind me of movies - jumbled all over the place and usually a bore.


----------



## Jeko (Sep 6, 2014)

> Most of the first person players and war games have some sort of an introduction story to them and yet they make millions.



That's because most of those games' customers are only interested in the multiplayer, and other games' introductions are exciting. The tutorial dungeon for Dark Souls, for example, is rather terrifying, but it lets you get to grips with the controls while you run away from the massive Asylum Demon.



> If a prologue shouldn't be a history lesson - then why did LOTR, Hobbit, etc. do so well?



Tolkien's style is very different from most modern publications. To many, the history of his world _is _exciting, and part of the whole point of the narrative.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 6, 2014)

I read this thread last night then picked up a new book with a large prologue. Irony.

It started with a beautifully written story. Then it abruptly jumped topics (wrong) and years (wrong) to powerful a paragraph that should have been the whole prologue. Then the author went into narrative mode (wrong) and described what was coming and why she would jump like a cricket across time (artsy).

So all I read was the prologue. Irony.


----------



## T.S.Bowman (Sep 6, 2014)

"Not much of a reader."

Ya know..I am slightly offended by that statement.

Who is anyone to declare that about anyone else?

Let's say you write a novel that has a prologue. You use said prologue for "backstory" (a.k.a. infodump) and there is nothing particularly exciting or riveting about it. Let's then say that someone decides, despite that, ( and keep in mind that a lot of readers will look at the prologue first when they open the book in a bookstore) to go ahead and buy your book. They take your book home and decide, having already determined that the prologue is kind of boring, to just skip it and start reading the main story.

Are you then going to disparage the person who paid good money for your book by saying that, since they skipped the prologue, they aren't "much of a reader?"

What do you think the chances are, with all the choices of reading material out there, that a reader is going to look at a boring prologue full of "backstory" and decide to go ahead and buy the book anyway? 

I would think the chances are pretty slim and I would also consider those readers to be pretty smart readers. They aren't willing to waste their money on something that doesn't grab their attention.

The only times I have EVER spent money on something I didn't even look at the first few pages of was when I went to the book sales at the area libraries where all the books cost less than a dollar each.

Like I said. My reading time is VERY limited and I refuse to waste any of it.


----------



## InstituteMan (Sep 6, 2014)

I am still finding it hard to get worked up on either side of this divide. Write a prologue, don't write a prologue; read a prologue, don't read a prologue -- it's all good if the writing is good and/or the reader enjoys the experience. I don't care for anchovies, but so long as you keep them off of my pizza you can enjoy as many as you like; I love mushrooms, but I won't make you eat them.


----------



## ziodice (Sep 6, 2014)

I'd never skip a prologue, simply as I consider it important to read a book as the writer wished it to be read. I also have a rule where whether I like a book or not I never stop reading it after I started because you never know if something great could happen.


----------



## Sam (Sep 6, 2014)

CasMerlyn(R) said:


> If a prologue shouldn't be a history lesson - then why did LOTR, Hobbit, etc. do so well?



Because Tolkien was an established name when he wrote those novels. As anyone will tell you, established authors can do whatever they want.


----------



## ziodice (Sep 6, 2014)

Sam said:


> Because Tolkien was an established name when he wrote those novels. As anyone will tell you, established authors can do whatever they want.



Also made up for it that the book was good.


----------



## ShadowEyes (Sep 6, 2014)

Well, everyone's arguing about whether prologues are essential. I'm not sure that anything is essential to a story, so it's not worth discussing. You could "write" a story by crossing out letters from the nutrition facts of your soda can.  ::tongue-in-cheek::
If something was considered essential, there'd be one person who'd find a way to make it work regardless.

Rather, the question in focus should be:  What are prologues and how can we use them effectively?

One aspect of a prologue, in my opinion, is that it sets the story. You don't need to read the prologue because, presumably, whether in the past, reciting standard info, or in flash-forward, it already happened, is happening, or will happen. It just enriches the experience, by saying, "Hey, this is a cool point in the story that may or may not be relevant."

You cannot force the reader to enjoy your book, just as much as you cannot force the reader to read your story's history, care about its characters, or understand foreshadowing. The ball's in their court. C. S. Lewis even said, in Mere Christianity, that skipping parts of his book is entirely okay.

Ultimately, I believe it comes down to, as Gavrushka implied, "trust." As readers, we trust the author to tell us a story that makes sense. The author can do this in appealing (rule of cool) or unappealing (info-dumps) ways. However, with prologues, trust is established as expectations are established. Whether they're met it entirely up to the reader's perception of your story.

One thing I think we can agree on, though, is that the story should come first. Whether the story starts in the past, present, or future is redundant.

As for my own personal tastes, I have anchoring bias. The first prologue I ever read was Sanderson's The Way of Kings. It's about four pages long and sets up the 10,000 page series. Is it essential? Nope! Is it revealing? Nope! It's history, which I expect is foreshadowing, and some of the characters recur. So I don't mind prologues, especially when I have huge swathes of time to get lost in the world.


----------



## InstituteMan (Sep 6, 2014)

ziodice said:


> I'd never skip a prologue, simply as I consider it important to read a book as the writer wished it to be read. I also have a rule where whether I like a book or not I never stop reading it after I started because you never know if something great could happen.



Life is to short to drink bad beer or to read bad books. I might stick it out through something that is less than good if I have reason to believe a book will improve, such positive reviews or recommendations from friends or having previously enjoyed the author's work, but once a book is clearly irredeemably bad, I put it aside.


----------



## movieman (Sep 6, 2014)

Cadence said:


> Tolkien's style is very different from most modern publications. To many, the history of his world _is _exciting, and part of the whole point of the narrative.



If I remember correctly, LOTR also languished for nearly twenty years before it really took off. Personally, I've never got more than a hundred pages into it, because there are so many info-dumps about Elvish folk dancing.

As for games, the half-hour backstory cut-scenes are the first thing I skip. I buy games to play them, not watch stuff I can't control.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 7, 2014)

Since it's been mentioned a few times already—I wonder if Tolkien's prologue from _The Lord of the Rings_ would have survived the slush pile in today's publishing world. :-k

(Here's the prologue, by the way, for any who wish to read it: http://www.serendipityrancher.com/tt-fellowshipp.htm.)


----------

