Prologues/Epilogues: For or Against?

[Magic_Muscle]

Just as the title suggests, I'd like to hear the merits of a Prologue from my fellow writers. I'm not interested in stating one way is right and another is wrong.

Normally from my background and writing discipline, I have always operated under the concept that prologues and epilogues are supplemental. They should never be factored into the main story. If they do, then they are chapters, not prologues or epilogues. If you cannot understand the main story without said prologue or epilogue, then you aren't using them correctly. Another fatal mistake is the use of prologues for info dumping, heavy handed exposition etc.

HOWEVER, that's -A- way, not the -ONLY- way.

In my next work, I fully intend to explore the usefulness of a Prologue and Epilogue. But I'd like to hear some input on this, be it experience or what was taught and why. Again, this is an exchange of ideals, not an argument nor some attempt to change someone's mind.

 

[Droflet]

I don't use either. As you pointed out, if you can't do it within chapters then you're probably trying to info dump. Been there, tried that.
After dispensing with prologues, that weren't necessary, I crafted everything I wanted with chapters.

 

[Rake]

Greetings MM - I'm new here.

I think they can work well when done in a way that remains entertaining.

I find that people put a lot of pressure on the first chapter - you need introduce character, tease a plot, give an environment, and begin building a world. A prologue can alleviate some of that; you can use disposable characters or concentrate on a hook without the burden of the rest.


Game of thrones has a brilliant prologue. Sin City prologue was a short film before it was tapped in - fantastic. On the other side of the coin Man of Steel was written by accountants - had all the targets ticked but was just poo (at least I think so).


Personally I like to stroll into a story before I start running so a good prologue is welcome so long as its relevant and not an excuse to slap the reader with the info dump you mentioned.


Good luck I'll enjoy reading.


Rake

 

[Kerrybuchanan]

Despite having been told time and again that prologues and epilogues were a no-no, both my published novels have them.

I use my prologue to give a glimpse of a scene that seems at first to be unrelated to the main story, but later is seen to be relevant. It’s a sort of tease.

I should say that I don’t consciously set out to do this, but it just seems to work and my publishers and editors never batted an eye at them. Readers seem to enjoy them and I’ve had positive feedback. Somehow it works.

I don’t think there’s a hard and fast rule, but if you use them I guess it needs to serve a purpose that isn’t easily achieved as ‘just another chapter’.

It’s worth reading books in your genre that use them well and then deciding if your story would benefit from a prologue and/or epilogue or if it’d be hobbled by one.

 

[G.T.]

I plan to use Prologue and Epilogue and I'm following one of my favourite author's usage (David Gemmell).

Basically, he uses the Prologue almost as foreshadowing, like the tease Kerry mentions above. You might be introduced to the antagonist through an event that occurs but with little context in relation to the main character, who you meet in chapter one. You may not see the antagonist again for a long while in the book.

It is kind of info-dumping but done in the best way I've ever seen.

If your prologue is just something that happens to the main character prior to chapter one, then it isn't really a prologue, you are just calling it that, it's really chapter 0.5. If the prologue is info-dumping about the history of the world like it is being read from a history book, then that can usually be woven into the chapters better, though I occasionally enjoy them if done well.

They work best in fantasy because it's a common occurrence in the genre.

 

[Lawrence Twiddy]

Well my opinions are covered in everything that Rake, Kerry and GT wrote so well.

Obviously whether you have them or not you just need to implement what you do well and it works. I don’t believe you have to be ‘for’ or a ‘against’, it’s all relative.

 

[The Big Peat]

I'm in Team Prologue as Tease.

Something that works really well about this for Fantasy in particular is it allows you to show the supernatural element immediately and then go right back to the establishing shot of mundanity that will be invaded by said fantasy. It's very much a "Have your cake and eat it" scenario.

I'd also add that authors who do that, but don't call it a prologue but call it chapter one, should be sent to Author Jail.

 

[HareBrain]

I'm not against prologues per se (I've used them myself) but I have to admit I feel some trepidation when I come across one in a novel. The questions that run through my mind are, Is this covering a slow first chapter (Eye of the World)? Is this going to be almost irrelevant to the rest of the book (Scar Night)? Am I going to get suckered into reading this book because the prologue is actually tons better than the rest of the story (Eye of the World again, but especially Echo City, about which I still feel rage)?

My advice is, use a prologue only if it does something good that can't be otherwise achieved. But be aware that quite a few readers (and agents etc) are prejudiced against them, so the positive value of the prologue also has to overcome this negative.

 

[DanielOwen]

At the risk of being mealy-mouthed, it totally depends. If you're writing an action/thriller, a prologue likely just delays the jump-off and might feel saggy and boring to a reader expecting excitement from the start. If you're writing something more prosaic, a prologue can act as a teaser or tone-setter before the "real" story begins.

My general opinion is that, like most writing, a prologue should be cut down mercilessly, eliminated if possible. Unless it's absolutely necessary to the story/tone/setting/whatever of the rest of the work, there's no need for one. If your first page can't hook a reader and you're relying on some nebulous pre-setup to be interesting enough to carry them through it, then your first page needs reworking.

An epilogue, I would generally only ever consider if there are loose ends that absolutely can't be tied up in the body of the story.

 

[Toby Frost]

For me, there are two main problems with prologues. First, the obvious infodump, which tries to prime the reader with knowledge that they have to soak up before they're allowed to read the story.

Second, there's the horror-film prologue, where an unimportant character is introduced and then killed to show that there is a danger. This can feel pretty obvious. It can work when it's done well - Tad Williams does it in one of the Memory, Sorrow and Thorn books, and Stephen King is good at it. But one of the many things I like about Alien is that you don't get this: it's just a slow buildup. But neither of these is an absolute rule that prologues shouldn't exist.

I quite like epilogues. A lot of interesting information can go into them, including a definitive explanation of what's happened in the story (Psycho does this, but a bit clumsily). But as with all of these things, it depends on how well they're done.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Great writers can use prologues well for pacing - novice writers use them to try and explain the background to the reader, which IMO just doesn't work.

 

[Steve Harrison]

It's not really a question of for or against, as all books are different. Some need prologues, some don't. My two published novels have them and my two unsold books don't. Maybe I'll add them!

For both the published novels I added them in during editing when I figured out they were the missing pieces of the puzzle. The first also had an epilogue and they formed a nice pair of bookends, which made for, I believe, a satisfying read.

I like reading prologues, too, as I find them to be the reading equivalent of settling into a comfortable chair to enjoy a hint of things to come. While I realise that on writers' boards the feedback is often overwhelmingly negative as people tend to assume prologues are just info dumps, I can't help thinking that for a perfectly legitimate way to start a story, they get an unfairly bad wrap.

 

[Wayne Mack]

Prologues, to me, serve as a way to provide a piece of information that would otherwise have to be covered by a flashback later in the story. The characteristics are that it is set earlier, often far earlier, than the main story and may not contain the same characters. Doing as a flashback within a story may actually make the text more of an info dump than having it as a sort of stand alone short story preceding the main story.

Epilogues can serve a similar purpose tying up or completing background story arcs. Whether it is labeled as an epilogue or the final chapter probably doesn't make much difference, but the characteristics seem to be that it is either a much later point in time or it has the point of view of a minor character or a new character. Think of the end of the Harry Potter series where the story jumps ahead to where the characters are married and sending off their children to Hogwarts. For me, that serves as a nice finale to the story. Maybe it is not absolutely required, but after seeing the characters go through some much trauma, it is rewarding to see that they went on with their lives.

 

[The Big Peat]

I'm not against prologues per se (I've used them myself) but I have to admit I feel some trepidation when I come across one in a novel. The questions that run through my mind are, Is this covering a slow first chapter (Eye of the World)? Is this going to be almost irrelevant to the rest of the book (Scar Night)? Am I going to get suckered into reading this book because the prologue is actually tons better than the rest of the story (Eye of the World again, but especially Echo City, about which I still feel rage)?

My advice is, use a prologue only if it does something good that can't be otherwise achieved. But be aware that quite a few readers (and agents etc) are prejudiced against them, so the positive value of the prologue also has to overcome this negative.

This here is the biggest danger of the prologue to me. You're effectively starting the story twice and are relying on the reader to like both starts, even when they're making comparisons between the two which encourages them to be critical. My biggest personal example of this is Daniel Abraham's The Dragon's Path, which has a great prologue and meh opening chapters. Good openings, imo, try not give readers chances to grumble (unless part of spectacular).

 

[Magic_Muscle]

I appreciate the community's involvement on this discussion. It is proving most fruitful to see the pros and cons from multiple people.

 

[Flaviosky]

I use my prologue to give a glimpse of a scene that seems at first to be unrelated to the main story, but later is seen to be relevant. It’s a sort of tease.

Wow, I never imagined to step of a such a sharp and precise description of what I think about prologues XD.

 

[Biskit]

My feeling is that the real problem with prologues is that there are so many truly dire ones out there that it sours their perception in the writing/publishing worlds.

Sadly (and particularly as a self-pubbed author), my experience with self-pubbed work is that I look at something on Amazon that might be promising, encounter the prologue and give up. The corollary to that is reading the Amazon reviews and encountering phrases like "really quite good once you get past the prologue".

Prologues have their places and uses, but like so many other aspects of this craft, if you don't do it well the result is awful.

 

[SilentRoamer]

I think a good example of prologues written well are Wheel of Time (due to how they tie each of the books together with a consistent theme of the World turning) and Prince of Nothing (where they use them as a tease for bigger events)