what's the deal with prologues?

[sule]

It feels like prologues are used a bit too often in sf and fantasy (particularly fantasy and particularly particularly epic fantasy) for me as a reader, and I've encountered others who feel similarly. So I wanted to ask a question of this forum: What does the prologue need to accomplish to be worth the time the reader invests in it? What makes the prologue necessary?

For an example from my personal taste I want to describe one prologue that I think isn't fully necessary and one that I think does what a prologue should do (although I bet there will be disagreement). First, the prologue from The Eye of the World I don't think works specifically for the novel The Eye of the World (whether it works as an introduction to The Wheel of Time I think is a different question). The prologue introduces us to (1) A character we never see again in the novel and (2) A time period so distant to the events of the novel that it feels unconnected from the events of the story. It just doesn't tie in with the rest of the story in a satisfying way (and again, this is my personal preference), but is that what a prologue is supposed to do? The prologue that I think does work is the prologue of The Way of Kings (the prologue, not the prelude that comes before it). In that prologue we meet a character that we encounter multiple times across the rest of the novel, it introduces us to some of the things that are possible with the magic system, and it gives the reader a first-hand look at an event that triggers a lot of the plot of the novel. Most importantly, it feels like it should be there; that the story just wouldn't work if the prologue were skipped. I don't get that feeling from the prologue of The Eye of the World and from a plentitude of other prologues in published books. In my own works I tend to try to skip the prologue because when I write one it feels like I'm just fulfilling a trope of the genre.

So those are my thoughts on it, but I wanted to know what you had to say about it. What are your preferences, as a reader and writer? Do you have different thoughts about what the prologue is supposed to do?

 

[Overread]

I hate when a prologue introduces characters like you outline for Eye of the World. I get the attraction from the author, they get to give a little bit of background perhaps to the greater events of the story. The problem is that, as readers, we often start to identify and latch onto characters at the very early parts of the book. Good or bad those are often characters that we are first invested in with the story. So when a prologue starts off introducing and getting us familiar with characters who then never appear again and might even be ancient history within the main narrative, its rather jarring.

This can also be true because its possible that a prologue can setup a very different pace. An action heavy prologue that introduces a key moment in history at an epic battle - suddenly followed the "farm boy slowly becoming a hero" setting that takes several chapters to even get us back to a strong lead character or any action.


Personally I think that one key aspect that can really help is to write the Prologue like a history book. Make it very clear that we are reading history if you're going to write off those characters. You then at least say to the reader (without overtly saying it) "This is history; its background; its setting the scene for the book. These are not characters you're going to invest into in the story - the story comes after this".



As for what its supposed to do I think that comes down to the author. It might set the history; it might foreshadow events; it might establish a key character who appears later; it might set the seeds for a mystery. I've seen Robin Hobb in some of her books use a small (paragraph or so) "letter" at the start of each chapter that tell a short bit of the narrative on their own. Filling in little detials that flesh out what's to follow without spoiling, whilst at the same time weaving a bit of the story of their own.

 

[Brian G Turner]

The publishing industry seems generally against prologues, on the grounds that most writers use it to try and explain something of context of the story that follows - which completely misses the point that unanswered questions help drive a reader's interest. Even still, writer's can be loathe to let go of prologues and I've been guilty of it myself.

Another reason for prologues is a writer's feeling that nothing much really happens at the start of their story - so the prologue is put there to try and create some sense of tension that the story otherwise seems to be lacking. In effect, create a sense of something happening so the reader can hold onto that promise during an otherwise slow start. Really, it just shows lack of confidence on the part of the author.

However, it's a hard lesson for writers to learn - after investing so much time in backstory and world-building, the idea of just letting the reader fill in the blanks themselves might grate a little - but it is absolutely the right thing to do. Readers have an imagination that needs to be fired - finding the right way to work that can be a challenge indeed, without over-explaining everything.

 

[Danny McG]

Even the words "the prologue" remind me, every time I hear them, of Frankie Howerd as Lurcio in Up Pompeii

 

[Steve Harrison]

I like reading and writing prologues and I have never understood why they get so much negative 'press' in writing circles. It's all about finding the best way to start a story and a prologue can be that particular way for that particular piece of work.

These days I start every novel draft with a prologue and, as I write and cover information in the prologue, I go back and delete it from the prologue. Sometimes the prologue is whittled down so much it completely disappears, other times it remains intact or is refined. But it serves a valuable purpose for me either way.

Oddly enough, I couldn't get any interest in my first novel over many years and drafts until I added a prologue to my final attempt and it was bought by a publisher almost straight away.

 

[tegeus-Cromis]

Most prologues are unnecessary; writers pour into them info that can often, more fruitfully, be inferred from the main story. They also create this fuzzy area, where you're not sure whether the book has started or not.

On the other hand, there are prologues such as M. John Harrison's to Viriconium, that are such gorgeous, poetic pieces of writing in their own right that no other considerations need apply.

So I guess my point is: if you can fully justify the existence of the prologue by its writing, by all means, add one. If you're just using it for info dumping, don't bother.

 

[The Big Peat]

I like reading and writing prologues and I have never understood why they get so much negative 'press' in writing circles. It's all about finding the best way to start a story and a prologue can be that particular way for that particular piece of work.

These days I start every novel draft with a prologue and, as I write and cover information in the prologue, I go back and delete it from the prologue. Sometimes the prologue is whittled down so much it completely disappears, other times it remains intact or is refined. But it serves a valuable purpose for me either way.

Oddly enough, I couldn't get any interest in my first novel over many years and drafts until I added a prologue to my final attempt and it was bought by a publisher almost straight away.

Huh. Interesting technique. I like it.


I also liked the prologue in The Eye of the World. I guess partly I take the point of view that anyone seen in a prologue is not necessarily appearing in this book so that doesn't bother me.

But for me, the prologue established the theme and the underlying structure and created a sense of tension. The idea this was an ancient cyclical conflict, that the Dragon had things to put right, that the threat of the Dark One and Ishmael and the taint of Saidin were srs bsns... I got all that. Could I have got that from the rest of the book? Maybe, but I don't think it'd have had as much impact; the prologue was a real Showing vs Telling moment for me.

Most importantly, I just think it was a really good piece of writing that wowed me. Ishmael's frustration at not being able to truly taste his success really came across. And while I can get how some people would have read that epicness might have been 'huh' at then getting Rand but I wasn't. Because, y'know, prologue.

I think what Martin does with SoIaF is pretty similar. He gives us good, interesting in their own right scenes, that feature important events that give us insight to what the book is about but that due to time/characters aren't really part of the main narrative. That's ditto what Rowling does with her pseudo-prologue first chapter of Harry Potter. And a few others.

It has to be interesting in its own right, and it should usually tell us things that are useful to the story but that can't be incorporated into the main narrative. Think that covers it.

 

[zmunkz]

Prologues are great for establishing promises of scope, genre, and tone, as well as (though easiest to do poorly) showing critical backstory.

Eye of the world’s prologue is important for scope. If you aren’t looking for a sweeping, thousands-of-years timespan with thousands of POVs, then the wheel of time is not for you. The prologue is a neat little packet with all of those spices in it, so you know what you are in for. Also **spoiler => it’s featuring Rand in the previous turn of the wheel, so it’s not like all of the characters aren’t relevant.

In Game of Thrones, genre was important to establish. Most of the first book is a medieval political thriller... if that’s your cup of tea, but not dragons, you’d be the wrong reader. He makes it clear that, whatever else is going in, there’s crazy zombie magic in this world too, so be ready for it.

Way of Kings was the hardest for me personally. A prelude followed by a prologue, then a throw away pov, then a pov of someone who dies... yikes! But this was all important to establish tone and scale. The story you are about to read is huge, complex, and there is a lot to learn. If you don’t like that kind of immersive experience, leave now!

Establishing the right promises goes a long way in making sure readers enjoy your story. If the story needs that extra package up front in order to deliver a satisfying experience, then a prologue is one way to do it.

 

[sknox]

I do sort of the reverse from The Big Peat. Whatever is the opening scene(s) I label as Chapter One. If it continues to bear weight as the opening chapter, then that's what it is. If it remains necessary but doesn't connect to Chapter Two, then it becomes Prologue.

So far, I haven't written any prologues.

 

[ginny]

Both of the mentioned books seem to suffer a prelude and prologue.
Jordan chose not to call his a prelude and instead called it Earlier.

I really don't think that Preludes and Prologues matter--in the sense that they become names for earlier chapters.

What I mean by that is that the whole novel is story and story has to draw the reader in right away and keep their attention enough to continue reading.

For me; both novels do that, even though I'm not much for fantasy reading.

The real task when drawing attention to these chapters by naming them Prelude and Prologue is that;--after drawing attention to them--you must write well in the first chapter in order to keep that going and hope that any expectations you've just created with the reader will be taken care of in your continuing narrative.

One problem I see with Prologues is when the writer appears to have used that primarily to do some world building or mood shaping for the rest of the story, which is where it requires them to now maintain that mood or risk loosing the reader.

However, when you look at books without preludes or prologues, the astute reader will find that this is true also in all books that have chapter or scene breaks(whatever divisions)you can't deviate from the previous writing without jarring the reader some.

That's most likely where the poor prologue or prelude can be problematic. Where the reader expectation is quickly dashed by the actual story.

 

[Andronikos]

I think they work for a sweeping epic fantasy with lots of viewpoints and events, but not for stories with a tighter focus on characters.