Do you read prologues?

[Ceinwenn]

It's part of a set of bookends. The other half is called an Epilogue. They're usually shaped like elephants with their trunks raised.

 

lol! The book I am currently reading has a prologue, but the author has used that to tie this current book to his last & to explain a little about how the book is going to develop. Kinda important information, I think! (Which I almost skipped on the advice of the person who inspired this thread :motz:)

[Natty]

Agreed that if it's just to give a book a "tone" and there's nothing that distinguishes it narratively from "Chapter 1" you might as well call it that rather than "Prologue".

 

However they sometimes are needed, if just to set a scene in a context that will not make the reader think, "gawd, nothing happens in this book" - no one expects much to happen in prologues so it's a good place for explaining things which it would break the flow of the action/dialogue/etc. once the story's properly underway.

 

All in all, I would hope (although this thread makes me dread otherwise) that a good editor/publisher would have the sense to distinguish between a mis-named "Chapter 1" and an actual "Prologue" and act accordingly.

 

 

I agree with this. Although I mostly think prologues are just not needed and if anything, misused in some situations to not have them would indeed break the flow of a very good story. The example that jumps to mind is Frankenstein. I can't think if it's set out as a prologue but if we didn't have the letter's at the start telling us this is a story told to the narrator by Frankensteinn then the ending would just confuse us.

 

x

[RCee]

My OH never used to read the prologue because he used to think it spoiled the story. I remember arguing about this years ago as I never skip the prologue. Too often the story depends on it.

 

I will have to find out if he now reads them.....

 

As for non-fiction, I seldom read it but if I do I almost never read the introduction.

[Raven]

I do read prologues, but I never read the third, seventh and twelfth chapters, I find it adds an air of mystery to the plot, not knowing what the hell is going on.

[BookJumper]

I do read prologues, but I never read the third, seventh and twelfth chapters, I find it adds an air of mystery to the plot, not knowing what the hell is going on.

... LOL that just made my morning.

 

As well as being funny, it shows the incongruity of skipping anything so substantial - surely it's there for a reason? If you've picked up a half-decent book, I'm sure the author will know better than to spoil the plot at page iii, but rather will be telling you things that will let you better understand what the hell is going to be going on later on.

 

I am excited and bouncy now. I'd post my very own, unskippable (obviously) Prologue to illustrate my point but alas! it's longish and I've had to put it on restricted on the website it's published on to prevent evil google picking it up...

[Michelle]

I will double check in a minute, but I'm pretty sure that our writet's section is for registered members only - google et al only have guest permissions, so wouldn't be able to see it.

 

ETA: yep, if you're viewing as a guest, there are certain forums where you can see thread titles, but not the content - the writer's section is one, as is general chat.

Edited May 1, 2009 by Michelle

[Talisman]

I always read the prologue and any apendixes, especially with non fiction, as they lay the groundwork for the book, very often explain why and how the book was written, and give you valuable background information. Like others have said, these things are there for a reason.

[BookJumper]

I will double check in a minute, but I'm pretty sure that our writet's section is for registered members only - google et al only have guest permissions, so wouldn't be able to see it.

Sadly the silly thing is over 3,000w long, that's exactly why I didn't post it on here but on a writer's critiquing website where that kind of submission is considered normal and readable !

[Rawr]

I do read prologues, but I never read the third, seventh and twelfth chapters, I find it adds an air of mystery to the plot, not knowing what the hell is going on.

 

...

[sadya]

Agree with most of the responses here. But I never thought I'd come across a discussion about the necessity of reading a prologue or not!

[BookJumper]

Apparently, distaste for prologues (even ones that by admission of the distaster are well-written) is not that uncommon. Consider this (extracted from the comments to my prologue as poster on a writer's website) - I post as it encapsulates most of the arguments that have been pitched against prologues so far:

 

"You show a fine prose style here but I am anxious for this story to start. 'Anxious' here doesn't mean 'fascinated and eager'; it means 'frustrated'. I have found reading through this prologue to be a difficult business -- in fact, I have not read it through.

(...)

If this was in book form, I would probably proceed as follows: I'd skip the last 80% of it and zip on to chapter one, hoping that life begins there.

(...)

Please get on with the story.

(...)

Are you going to get around to a protagonist with a story or is it going to be more backstory verbiage? Gut everything except for this [this: two paragraph out of a 3500w prologue]:

(...)

But but but--- but nothing. Get on with the story. Yes; you have done some fine thinking in your history, but don't bring that history in unless and until it is relevant to the human story you are telling.

The truth is that prologues are there more than half the time, not for the reader, but for the writer who is as patronising as they are insecure. They feel the reader needs a 'heads up'. That there has to be a mystical entrance to elevate the poor dumb reader onto the writer's celestial plain.

Rubbish. Readers have more than enough to do in life and much prefer to get on with the story rather than wade through mystic gibberish. They'll enjoy the gibblets you throw them later, but first you have to get their imaginations working through a secret technique called "story telling".

(...)

What I mean by fine writing mixed with tedium is this: you write very nice sentences. They are airy and spacious. But without a core story to directly service, it's a bowl of hair.

(...)

you can turn a sentence -- which is an often unacquired skill.

I'm quite happy to see what happens when your narrative gets started, but I remain unconvinced that this is an auspicious start."

 

Irrespective of this being my work, I don't get the logic of this at all: how can a book section displaying "a fine prose style", "airy and spacious, very nice sentences" be also "tedious", "verbiage", "gibberish", and "a bowl of hair". Surely one set of attributes exludes the other?

 

I have tried to explain to the person in question exactly how and why the mythology is not merely incidental to the story, but he remains adamant that the start is not "auspicious". I get a distinct feeling that if I'd called this "Chapter 1" and made it patronisingly obvious that the mythical beings were active characters, there wouldn't be much of a problem.

 

Readers these days, eh? LOL.