# Proliferation of Prologue Popularity?



## J.J. Maxx (Feb 17, 2015)

I have seen numerous peices posted here and elsewhere and I see prologues everywhere. Why is this? I always considered prologues simply places for info-dumps or background. Most books I read I completely skip the prologue because I just want to read the damn story. I mean, why can't your prologue just be Chapter 1? I've read a few opinions on the Interwebs about not using prologues.

What do you think?


----------



## Sam (Feb 17, 2015)

Don't believe everything you read on the Internet. 

Prologues are fine when used correctly, i.e. when introducing a part of the story that takes place prior to the main narrative and therefore cannot be included in a first chapter. 

Prologues that info-dump are not prologues at all. 

They're info-dumps.


----------



## popsprocket (Feb 17, 2015)

Plenty of people still seem to use them but by and large the opinions I've observed have been 'don't bother'.


----------



## InstituteMan (Feb 17, 2015)

What Sam said. A prologue that is "part" of the story but that takes place much earlier or in a different place or with different characters than the main storyline doesn't bother me at all. Info dumps bug me. 

George RR Martin makes a good use of prologues in his Song of Ice and Fire books, I think. His prologues ought not be skipped, because they matter for the story and are fun to read, but they also stand apart from the rest of the book.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 18, 2015)

There are tons of discussions/arguments about this. Generally, it's writers and not readers who are anally concerned about the wisdom of using prologues. As noted above, they are not info-dumps if done properly; they are not the first chapter if done properly. If prologues were such a Huge Taboo, there would not be books published with them.

I might add, I'm constantly amazed by the number of detractors who also proclaim they skip them. How is one to know if the prologue is any good (or lousy) if one doesn't read it? :-k


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 18, 2015)

“Most agents hate prologues. Just make the first chapter relevant and well written.” — Andrea Brown, Andrea Brown Literary Agency

"I am fully settled in the I Hate Prologues camp too. I go so far as to NOT read them in a manuscript." — Janet Reid, FinePrint Literary Management

"... almost all the agents I know completely skip the prologue and start with chapter one when reading sample pages." — Kristin Nelson, Nelson Literary Agency

Just something to mull over for those considering submitting a prologue to agents. I'd recommend against it. :grief:


----------



## KJay (Feb 18, 2015)

I like prologues if they are done properly, but they are certainly not always necessary. 

The only one I have ever used so far is one where the POV is different from the rest of the book. It sets it up.

I think to skip a prologue is baffling - why would you? It was written for a reason!


----------



## Cran (Feb 18, 2015)

It seems to be that too many people believe their stories must have a prologue, and therefore include one without really understanding what a prologue is, or is meant to be in relation to the story. The wave of prologue writing popularity can probably be traced to the popularity of stories in print or film which include prologues. Ironically, the examples which inspired a generation of budding story tellers illustrate very clearly what a prologue is meant to be. 

What two key elements do the prologues of the most popular releases of _The Lord of the Rings_, _2001: A Space Odyssey_, _Superman_,_ The Batman, The Wolverine, The Mummy_, and _Dracula_, have in common?

I can understand why agents eschew prologues in submitted manuscripts. Even after eliminating most for not being prologues at all, a good agent knows that a prologue does not sell a story. A good story sells a story.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Feb 18, 2015)

Hello J.J.

I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Sometimes I start with a prologue and end with an epilogue, sometimes I start with Chapter One and end with an epilogue, sometimes the other way round and sometimes neither. It all depends on the structure of the story.

If it's just a straightforward back story, then maybe I'll call it _Chapter One: Five Years Ago_ or whatever. But In my experience a properly structured prologue can add some tension to the story as the reader ponders just how long it's going to be until she or he figures out how what happened back then relates to the story today.

But if prologues are good enough for Colin Dexter, James Patterson, Stieg Larsson, Douglas Adams, James Ellroy and Robert Ludlum, I reckon they're good enough for me. For some of the other books that line my shelves, authors start with a very short Part One that is a prologue in everything but name.

I'm glad we've had this little chat.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## tabasco5 (Feb 18, 2015)

I'm pro-prologue.


----------



## Sam (Feb 18, 2015)

Riis Marshall said:


> Hello J.J.
> 
> I'm not sure what the fuss is all about. Sometimes I start with a prologue and end with an epilogue, sometimes I start with Chapter One and end with an epilogue, sometimes the other way round and sometimes neither. It all depends on the structure of the story.
> 
> ...



Do you know what all of those people have in common? They are/were established authors. 

When you're starting out in the writing world, you want to limit your chances of rejection. 

Improper use of prologues increases it.


----------



## Riis Marshall (Feb 18, 2015)

Hello Sam



> Improper use of prologues increases it.



Whether you're a newbie or well established, improper use of _anything_ will likely lead to rejection.

My point is simply I think there is a place for a prologue if the structure of the plot and story line support it and at least some established writers agree. Interestingly, though, Douglas Adams' Prologue isn't called by that name. In fact, it has no name at all, it's just a couple of pages of text that precedes Chapter One (maybe his agent didn't believe in prologues either).

If I'm submitting a project to a prospective agent and she or he rejects it without reading it simply because it includes prologue, maybe this agent is one I don't want to do business with anyhow. 

This is entirely different from a situation where, as happened to me recently, a critic pointed out my prologue and back story as revealed over the first three chapters was muddled and confusing for the reader. I agreed, removed the prologue and put it - well, most of it - at the end of the third chapter and the story was much, much stronger.

We learn by doing.

All the best with your writing.

Warmest regards
Riis


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 18, 2015)

Sam said:


> Prologues are fine when used correctly, i.e. when introducing a part of the story that takes place prior to the main narrative and therefore cannot be included in a first chapter.
> 
> Prologues that info-dump are not prologues at all.



Why are you introducing a part of the story that takes place prior to the main narrative? What are you hoping to accomplish (except dumping information on the reader)?


----------



## Sam (Feb 18, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Why are you introducing a part of the story that takes place prior to the main narrative? What are you hoping to accomplish (except dumping information on the reader)?



To show what happened in the past, because it has a direct relationship to what happens in the future? 

If your MC's brother is murdered five years before the main story, which is better: info-dumping that in the first chapter, or showing it in a prologue that takes place during the murder?


----------



## J.J. Maxx (Feb 18, 2015)

I've picked up some books that between the introduction, dedication and prologue you don't actually get to the story till page 30...


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 18, 2015)

Sam said:


> To show what happened in the past, because it has a direct relationship to what happens in the future?
> 
> If your MC's brother is murdered five years before the main story, which is better: info-dumping that in the first chapter, or showing it in a prologue that takes place during the murder?



How about weaving it into the story? If it's truly relevant to the plot, it'll come up when it needs to.  If it's not, there's no need to ever reference it.

Remember how Twelve Angry Men began? "You've heard a long and complex case, gentlemen, and it is now your duty to sit down to try and separate the facts from the fancy. One man is dead. The life of another is at stake."  That's it.  That's all we're given.  We learn about the murder through the dialogue as the story progresses.  Admittedly, this is easier to do in the context of a jury, since the whole point is to revisit every single event of the murder; on the other hand, that's also nearly all the play (movie) was about.  Either way, there's no need to info-dump it either in a prologue or in the first chapter.  Just let the relevant facts come out naturally.


----------



## Crowley K. Jarvis (Feb 18, 2015)

Every single piece of writing is too different to generalize or rationalize the use of prologues in anything.

If it works with a given piece, provides good information without info dumping and is also interesting, then why not. 
Just decide what order to put everything in.

I've read so much online but anyone with experience seems to say not to generalize or invent a set of rules. If it works, do it. If it doesn't, don't. If they bore you, skip it.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 19, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> How about weaving it into the story? If it's truly relevant to the plot, it'll come up when it needs to.  If it's not, there's no need to ever reference it.



Weaving it into the story is one method of imparting the information. It is not the ONLY method. (And there are a lot of things in books which are not relevant to the _plot _- but are important in filling out the _story_.)


----------



## Skodt (Feb 19, 2015)

I find it funny how this never comes up in book clubs, but only in writers clubs. When I read a book, I rarely think, oh a prologue! I just simply read the words. If the words are good, then I continue. If the words are bad, then the book is placed to the side. I don't care if the prologue follows a set of rules. As the reader all I care about, is if the story is interesting. So, in my own opinion, if the prologue you write is captivating, then keep it. If it is boring, then lose it. Those two things are the basis for every aspect of your story, keep the juicy bits, and feed the scraps to the dogs.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 19, 2015)

Skodt said:


> I find it funny how this never comes up in book clubs, but only in writers clubs.



This is why it's important to have writers critique us, not readers.  Readers don't know what's good because they've been fed so much of what's bad that they're used to it.

The truth is, most readers aren't going to care if we use lots of -ly adverbs, or dialogue tags, or telling instead of showing - at least, not on the surface.  But I think they'll find certain works resonate more than others, even if they don't know the exact reason why.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 19, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> Readers don't know what's good because they've been fed so much of what's bad that they're used to it.



Oh...my...god...


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 19, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> Oh...my...god...



I feel you.  It's pretty unfortunate.


----------



## Sam (Feb 19, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> This is why it's important to have writers critique us, not readers.  Readers don't know what's good because they've been fed so much of what's bad that they're used to it.
> 
> The truth is, most readers aren't going to care if we use lots of -ly adverbs, or dialogue tags, or telling instead of showing - at least, not on the surface.  But I think they'll find certain works resonate more than others, even if they don't know the exact reason why.



You do realise that writers were readers before they were writers, yes? 

So, by extension of your absurd hypothesis, writers don't know what is good writing because, as readers, they don't know good reading. 

Yeah, that makes sense.


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 19, 2015)

Sam said:


> You do realise that writers were readers before they were writers, yes?
> 
> So, by extension of your absurd hypothesis, writers don't know what is good writing because, as readers, they don't know good reading.
> 
> Yeah, that makes sense.



How many writers do you know that hit it big with their first attempt because they read a lot? How many of us here were successful out of the gate because we were avid readers first?

Reading helps writing, without question, but it's not enough by itself.  We're all where we are right now because we LEARNED how to be good (or better) writers as we WROTE.  As a result, we learned to separate the masterworks from the drivel.  But that didn't happen overnight, and it certainly didn't happen just because we took out a pen one day.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 19, 2015)

Skodt said:


> I find it funny how this never comes up in book clubs, but only in writers clubs. When I read a book, I rarely think, oh a prologue! I just simply read the words. If the words are good, then I continue. If the words are bad, then the book is placed to the side. I don't care if the prologue follows a set of rules. As the reader all I care about, is if the story is interesting. So, in my own opinion, if the prologue you write is captivating, then keep it. If it is boring, then lose it. Those two things are the basis for every aspect of your story, keep the juicy bits, and feed the scraps to the dogs.



I just read a prologue that was interesting. It also made the rest of the book  less interesting. I once accidentally skipped a prologue that would have made the first half of the book uninteresting.

To me, that's the problem. People have a weak start, so they write a prologue. They're not trying to write a better book -- they're trying to sell their book.


----------



## Sam (Feb 19, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> How many writers do you know that hit it big with their first attempt because they read a lot? How many of us here were successful out of the gate because we were avid readers first?
> 
> Reading helps writing, without question, but it's not enough by itself.  We're all where we are right now because we LEARNED how to be good (or better) writers as we WROTE.  As a result, we learned to separate the masterworks from the drivel.  But that didn't happen overnight, and it certainly didn't happen just because we took out a pen one day.



No one hits it big with their first attempt. Period. It has nothing to do with how much they read. It has to do with the fact that you can't master anything on your first go. It's impossible. 

To say that readers don't know the difference between dross and excellent reading because they aren't writers is elitist and egotistical. It may be that some readers don't know, which is why rubbish like _Fifty Shades of Grey _sells, but if you're an avid reader of twenty-plus years, you know the difference between a good book and a doorstop.


----------



## Carousel (Feb 19, 2015)

Sam said:


> No one hits it big with their first attempt. Period. It has nothing to do with how much they read. It has to do with the fact that you can't master anything on your first go. It's impossible.



Really? a few for you to ponder over.



Emily Brontë's _Wuthering Heights_
Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason's _The Rule of Four_.
Agatha Christie's _The Mysterious Affair at Styles_
Ralph Ellison's only novel _Invisible Man_
Janet Fitch's _White Oleander_
F. Scott Fitzgerald's _This Side of Paradise_
Fannie Flagg's _Fried Green Tomatoes at the Whistlestop Cafe_
Charles Frazier's _Cold Mountain_
David Guterson's _Snow Fall on Cedars_
Mark Haddon's _The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time_
Melinda Hayes's _Mother of Pearl_
Marjorie Kellogg's _Tell Me That You Love Me, Junie Moon_
Sue Monk Kidd's _The Secret Life of Bees_ (4 million copies sold!)
Jhumpa Lahiri's _The Interpreter of Maladies_
Harper Lee's only novel _To Kill a Mockingbird_
Jay McInernay's _Bright Lights, Big City_
Brad Meltzer's _The Tenth Justice_
Margaret Mitchell's only novel _Gone with the Wind_
Laurie Notaro's _Idiot Girls Action Adventure Club_
Boris Pasternak's only novel _Dr. Zhivago_
Sylvia Plath's _The Bell Jar_
Arundhati Roy's _The God of Small Things_
Alice Sebold's _The Lovely Bones_
Anna Sewell's _Black Beauty_
Curtis Sittenfeld's _Prep_
Nicholas Sparks's _The Notebook_
John Kennedy Toole's only novel _A Confederacy of Dunces_
Lauren Weisberger's _The Devil Wears Prada_
Rebecca Well's _Divine Secrets of the Ya-Ya Sisterhood_
Oscar Wilde's _The Picture of Dorian Gray_


----------



## J Anfinson (Feb 19, 2015)

Personally, I'd prefer to work events in as back story if I can, but if it would work better as a prologue then I'll do that.


----------



## Sam (Feb 19, 2015)

Carousel said:


> Really? a few for you to ponder over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I didn't say first novels. I said first attempts. 

You seldom hear about authors' first attempts, because most of them are consigned to a box and never found until after their death.


----------



## Carousel (Feb 19, 2015)

Of course.


----------



## J Anfinson (Feb 19, 2015)

Sam said:


> I didn't say first novels. I said first attempts.
> 
> You seldom hear about authors' first attempts, because most of them are consigned to a box and never found until after their death.




And some are embarrassed of their first published novels.


----------



## Cran (Feb 19, 2015)

Skodt said:


> I find it funny how this never comes up in book clubs, but only in writers clubs...


That's because it's an issue affecting writing, editing, and publishing, not reading. It's not so much a matter of Why a prologue, but more Whether a prologue. 

The reader doesn't care if it's a _prologue_ or a_ prelude_ or a _preface_ or a _teaser_ or a _foreword_ or an _introduction_; but the people making the book care. They care very much, because they have to. That means they have to know what each is without the confusions added by other forms of publishing and by common interpretations; it's their job.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 20, 2015)

I agree - the only places I ever see anyone say "Don't use a prologue! They're BAD BAD BAD!" are on writer's forums. Readers who are not writers don't seem to have any problem with them, unless they are, along with the rest of the book, badly written. So unless one thinks readers are idiots (the exceptions, of course, being those reading one's own books, I presume), it's a non-issue among the people who count. 

One shouldn't be afraid of prologues, but rather know when they're useful and when they're not, and write them as well as you write the rest of the book.


----------



## Carousel (Feb 20, 2015)

I couldn’t agree more; what readers want is a rattling good yarn, well told with characters that hold their interest, believable dialogue and a great ending. Give them that and they will come back for more. The rest is for the birds.


----------



## Skodt (Feb 20, 2015)

The point here being if the readers don't care, and still buy the book, then does it actually matter at all? The publishers and agents are important to sell the book. So if having a prologue or not having one doesn't harbor sells in any way, then I don't think that their opinion on prelude, prologue, teaser, really matters as much. Seems like another thing that is pointlessly stressed over. To be fair, we as writers have enough to stress over already.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 20, 2015)

Skodt said:


> The point here being if the readers don't care, and still buy the book, then does it actually matter at all? The publishers and agents are important to sell the book. So if having a prologue or not having one doesn't harbor sells in any way, then I don't think that their opinion on prelude, prologue, teaser, really matters as much. Seems like another thing that is pointlessly stressed over. To be fair, we as writers have enough to stress over already.


I think agent opinions matter a lot. At least, if you're seeking representation. 

To quote Morpheus' from _The Matrix_: "They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys . . ." 

If you want to submit a prologue, I recommend researching each agent you plan to query to find what their opinion on prologues is. Some don't care either way. A lot, though, hate prologues with a passion. 

For the agents that dislike prologues, the general advice (from agents themselves) is to omit your prologue from your sample chapters, and only mention your prologue if and/or when the agent expresses an interest in representing you. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 20, 2015)

I wish I could find a legitimate survey showing that "most" (or even "many") agents/editors/publishers hate prologues. I really do, because then I wouldn't be left wondering where these statements come from. If I knew a particular agent/publisher hated prologues and automatically rejected stories containing them, or would pressure me to remove it, I would not be submitting _any _story to them - they are too narrow in their views to be of any value to me. Frankly, I don't believe it would narrow my opportunities significantly, and would undoubtedly save me a lot of frustration.


----------



## bazz cargo (Feb 21, 2015)

I guess I will stick to doing amateurlogs, I hope one day I get paid and go pro.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 21, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I wish I could find a legitimate survey showing that "most" (or even "many") agents/editors/publishers hate prologues. I really do, because then I wouldn't be left wondering where these statements come from. If I knew a particular agent/publisher hated prologues and automatically rejected stories containing them, or would pressure me to remove it, I would not be submitting _any _story to them - they are too narrow in their views to be of any value to me. Frankly, I don't believe it would narrow my opportunities significantly, and would undoubtedly save me a lot of frustration.



From what I've seen, it has to do more with evaluating a manuscript, rather than the actual merits of a prologue.

A prologue, by it's very nature, is disconnected in some way from the main story.



Sometimes it's written in a *different POV* from the rest of the manuscript.
Sometimes it's written in a *different tense* from the rest of the manuscript.
Sometimes it's written with *different characters *from the rest of the manuscript.
Sometimes it's written in a *different time* from the rest of the manuscript.

As a busy agent, you likely don't have time to waft around reading both a prologue _and_ a first chapter, especially when you have anywhere from a dozen to a hundred submissions a day to slog through.

You're going to read the first few pages (if the manuscript survives even _that_ far) and that's it. 

With a prologue, there's no guarantee that what you're reading is even written in the same way as the rest of the manuscript!

This (based on the blog posts and interviews of various literary agents) is why a lot of agents seem to dislike receiving prologues. 

Not so much because prologues are "bad"—but because they aren't a reliable indicator of the actual manuscript. :encouragement:


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 21, 2015)

There's a difference between determining what to send an agent and not writing a prologue because "most agents don't like them". If I had a question about including the prologue with the first chapters and their guidelines didn't address that, I would ask the agent. If at any time the agent indicated they blanket-hated prologues, they would be crossed off my list, as I said.


----------



## Jaysen (Feb 21, 2015)

I feel like prologues can have an important function in books. If publishers are turning away books just because there's a prologue, then there must be a wide misuse of them. I don't think there's any reason to be for/against prologues. A writer should decide weather or not to use a prologue with a book by book basis. If it performs a crucial function to your story, then I think it makes sense to have one. It doesn't make sense not to have one, in that regard.


----------



## Morkonan (Feb 23, 2015)

J.J. Maxx said:


> I have seen numerous peices posted here and elsewhere and I see prologues everywhere. Why is this? I always considered prologues simply places for info-dumps or background. Most books I read I completely skip the prologue because I just want to read the damn story. I mean, why can't your prologue just be Chapter 1? I've read a few opinions on the Interwebs about not using prologues.
> 
> What do you think?



Should I use "automobiles" in my story?

Answering that question will tell you whether or not a prologue is justified. So, what would your answer to that question be? It would probably be "Well, Mork, if you need automobiles in your story, then it's probably a good idea to use them." If a story needs a prologue, it's a good idea to use it.

However, some writers think that their particular story must have a prologue, since there's so much information about the Setting to communicate and so many events that are outside of the story that need to be related to the reader. So, they'll grab a Prologue as a crutch and often ignore the fact that relating all of these things is almost always best done within the story, itself. There are times, however, when this is not true. But, the first tool the writer should use to relate this sort of information is "story." If "story" will not work effectively, then a prologue or foreword is necessary. 

There are also creative uses to be considered. For instance, if one would like to emphasize the epic and historical nature of a tale, one might choose to artistically include a prologue, just to lend that "flavor" of an experience of reading an epic historical tale, imminently worthy of a prologue, to a reader. "Concerning Hobbits...."


----------



## David Gordon Burke (Feb 24, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I might add, I'm constantly amazed by the number of detractors who also proclaim they skip them. How is one to know if the prologue is any good (or lousy) if one doesn't read it? :-k



Amazing to think that an aspiring writer would skip the prologue.  Lame.

I used a prologue in my novel.  It´s like a teaser.  It gives a bit of an idea of what is coming later on but is shrouded in mystery.  Who are these people and why are they doing these things?  How did they get here?  
Whether mine works or not is debatable.  As for the merit of calling it chapter one or prologue or whatever is just semantics.  
Back to my amazement .... other than that twenty page blurb at the beginning of a Project Guttenberg Ebook, I generally read it all ... the acknowledgment, the dedication, the introduction etc. etc.  
A writer that doesn´t enjoy reading?  Like a chef with his taste buds burnt out.  Rather eat somewhere else, thanks.

David Gordon Burke


----------



## Docbad (Feb 24, 2015)

Very interesting topic, seems to be quite polarizing, haha. I think I'll have to agree with those who say that a prologue must be properly used. I feel like it might even be debatable as to the actual purpose of a prologue. Is it to give some information pre-story? Is it to catch the reader's attention with a bit of flashy prose to sink the hook? Maybe a prologue's purpose is multifaceted or even author-definable. Bringing it down to brass tacks, I agree with Skodt: if the words are good, it's a good prologue; if the words are bad, it's a bad prologue. And if it's entitled Chapter 1, it's an integrated prologue, haha.


----------



## Blade (Feb 24, 2015)

Docbad said:


> And if it's entitled Chapter 1, it's an integrated prologue, haha.


:blackeye: This looks like a step down the rabbit hole, then prologue 2 ....etc.

I think I would always read the prologue, if offered, as part of the presented text though next time I am going to read it very carefully.:indecisiveness:


----------



## Docbad (Feb 25, 2015)

Blade said:


> :blackeye: This looks like a step down the rabbit hole, then prologue 2 ....etc.



Oh yeah, I know, I was just being facetious


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 25, 2015)

David Gordon Burke said:


> Amazing to think that an aspiring writer would skip the prologue.  Lame.
> 
> I used a prologue in my novel.  It´s like a teaser.  It gives a bit of an idea of what is coming later on but is shrouded in mystery.  Who are these people and why are they doing these things?  How did they get here?
> Whether mine works or not is debatable.  As for the merit of calling it chapter one or prologue or whatever is just semantics.
> ...



Well, if the author added the prologue to make the book better, it should be read. But how often does that happen?

What I see too often is prologues designed to sell the book that actually make the book (or reading experience) worse. Not reading those is like not reading the blurb on the back of the book.

I recently read a book with a well-written prologue that was a giant spoiler. Once I accidentally missed a prologue that would have made the book worse for me.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 26, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Well, if the author added the prologue to make the book better, it should be read. But how often does that happen?



I would imagine most writers who include a prologue do so to make the book better. Why would they add it to make the book worse? And how would anyone know if they skipped all prologues?

Yes, there are badly written prologues. Yes, there are prologues that weren't necessary. Does that make prologues something to be avoided? No. It means there are writers who don't know how to write them well or when to use them.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 26, 2015)

shadowwalker said:


> I would imagine most writers who include a prologue do so to make the book better. Why would they add it to make the book worse? And how would anyone know if they skipped all prologues?
> 
> Yes, there are badly written prologues. Yes, there are prologues that weren't necessary. Does that make prologues something to be avoided? No. It means there are writers who don't know how to write them well or when to use them.



Do you have the same rosy attitude about the blurbs on the back of the book?


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 26, 2015)

EmmaSohan said:


> Do you have the same rosy attitude about the blurbs on the back of the book?



I don't have a "rosy" attitude about prologues - just an objective one. As to blurbs - if the front cover looks interesting, I'll read the back to see if the story sounds interesting.


----------



## Kyle R (Feb 26, 2015)

Also worth discussing is the *epilogue*, in my opinion. 

It gets mentioned less often than a prologue but serves a similar (though simultaneously different) function.

Sometimes they come as a pair, bookending the story. :encouragement:


----------



## Gamer_2k4 (Feb 26, 2015)

The difference is that you're using an epilogue to tie up loose ends.  The story is technically complete, but you're offering a "where are they now" section as a bonus.  Of course, this is after the reader has gone through your book already and connected with the characters.  Unlike a prologue, which can often be a gimmick to encourage reading, the epilogue is more of a favor to your readers.  You're essentially thanking them for reading your story by giving just that little extra bit of flavor.

I think that's why I love epilogues and can't stand prologues.  With a prologue, there's so much potential for abuse, because it can so often be a crutch for failings in the actual manuscript.  Your story isn't interesting? Throw in a tense flashback to get them reading! Your story doesn't make sense? Drop a bunch of information on them so they have context!

Conversely, you don't use an epilogue as a crutch because you simply can't.  If the story wouldn't be complete without it, it would be another chapter, not the epilogue.  And if you haven't hooked your readers by "THE END," it's a little late to start there.


----------



## Terry D (Feb 26, 2015)

Carousel said:


> Really? a few for you to ponder over.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Now go back and see how many of those writers were successful in other forms of writing before writing that first novel. You'll find that most of them were accomplished non-fiction writers, Poets, playwrights, journalists, or short story writers before writing the long one. They made their writing chops, just not as novelists. And for the novelists, many had written several books prior to hitting it big (I know Nicholas Sparks had two unpublished before The Notebook).


----------



## EmmaSohan (Feb 26, 2015)

I basically agree with Gamer. But the book I started today had a prologue, and I thought it added to the book. It took place just before Chapter 1, there was no teaser, it wasn't trying to patch up any problems. It was just part of the story that had the feel of a prologue -- the story starts with her at work at an internship, the prologue is her last day of college. It helped do character and setting.

Bishop's prologue (in Beyond Light) works on at least three levels. It's good action, it does setting really well, and it shows the reader that Bishop is not afraid to kill off someone nice, adding tension to the rest of the book. PlasticWeld's prologues (unmarked) are always fun.


----------



## shadowwalker (Feb 27, 2015)

Gamer_2k4 said:


> The difference is that you're using an epilogue to tie up loose ends.



Which is why, IMO, so many epilogues are poorly done. It's like those mysteries where the reader isn't given all the information and POOF! they show up at the end to explain the how's and why's. Most epilogues I've read either weren't needed at all (obvious conclusions or superfluous information) or were used - much as the maligned prologue is accused of - to include things that should have gone into the main story. So I'm not a fan of epilogues.

But I still read them.


----------

