It seems nothing is
guaranteed to start a debate among readers and authors more than the issue of
whether a book ought to have a prologue. Does a prologue serve any useful
purpose or is it a lazy way of starting into a story?
It appears the jury is still
out on this one. Not too long ago, if you are to believe a lot of things
written on the subject, the book industry’s top-hitters, namely publishers and
agents, were set against the whole concept of prologues. For some reason their
minds are changing – and I can see why.
Prologues work best when an
author uses them as a platform from which to launch his/her subsequent story.
In almost all cases they should be detached in time from the story about to
unfold – a means to provide a teasing event, the significance of which will
only become clear as the main story unfolds.
The best examples of the use
of prologues are to be found in the novels of Clive Cussler. He has made an art
out of beginning his yarns with a seemingly unrelated story, usually set in
prior decades or centuries, only for the reader to discover that this story (or
backdrop) is essential to the understanding and enjoyment of the modern-day
tale about to unfold.
Cussler does it so well that
often the reader feels a sense of loss at leaving the era of the prologue to
begin the main event!
Naturally prologues don’t
have to be as separated in time as Cussler often makes them. An event within a
year, of even a few months, of the opening main sequence of a story, will serve
just as well to grab the attention of readers – provided, of course, the need
for a prologue actually enhances the overall reading experience.
The reason why a lot of
people aren’t switched on by prologues is that often they are little more than
Chapter 1, dressed up in a fancy title that authors somehow think makes their
overall product look a bit more sexy. It doesn’t.
It’s plain daft to begin with
what is called a prologue if the next chapter (now called Chapter 1) simply
follows on from the events told in the prologue. I’ve read a lot of so-called
prologues only to discover that the ‘first chapter’ begins with the same
characters, talking about the same things a mere few hours later!
As I’ve said, prologues
should be ‘teasers’ and used only where there is justification for
back-dropping a story in a different context, or providing a related event,
which will start to make sense for the reader as the story progresses.
They are often used these
days as an early means to get inside the head of the baddie, say a serial
killer, to tell the back-story of how he/she came to start their murdering
rampage. The main story then opens with the detective assigned to the case, by
which stage the reader has a sense of the difficulties that will be involved in
tracking down the culprit. In this example, if the writer inserts a lot of
graphic detail into the prologue, the reader will also engage immediately with
the detective in the desire to catch the killer.
Generally, extreme care must
be taken with the use of prologues. Not only should they have a proper context
but authors need to be wary of the fact that these are the first views readers
have of the style and pace of the writer. They are the shop window and if
they’re not dressed properly the reader is unlikely to go much further.
Is there a simple rule on the
use of prologues? Unfortunately not. Bearing in mind what’s already been said
there is usually little need for a prologue – and so it’s not a question that
should vex authors as much as it appears to.
A story should always be told
with the reader in mind. I always like the philosophy of getting a story
started in an interesting way, keep it flowing, and end it with as much drama,
pathos and fanfare as you can muster. Nothing else matters.
But – and it’s a big but – if
the end product can be enhanced by the use of a well-scripted and properly
thought-out prologue then not only should the author go for it, but he/she has
an imperative to do so.
Joe McCoubrey
Joe McCoubrey’s Blogsite: http://joemccoubrey.com/
Joe McCoubrey on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/#!/joe.mccoubrey
Joe McCoubrey on Twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/JoeMcCoubrey1
You know, I really didn't know that, but that's what I did. At the risk of sounding vain, I must have a fairly descent instinct about writing, content-wise anyway. Maybe I learned more than I thought I did from all those thousands of books I read as a kid. Who'd a thunk. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your interesting article. I had not thought about that.I'm sure many people will find it useful.
ReplyDeleteI'd heard that Traditional Publishers were not liking Prologues but not the reasons why. This is a great insight to the reasoning. I've read two of William Kent Krueger's books where he did a scene from the middle of the book in the prologue. The first time I saw it happen, I was totally thrown for a loop. Then I did come to see the logic of it as I read further. So I do agree, this is a better way to go with a prologue.
ReplyDeleteThanks so much for your insight into Prologues.
Beautifully researched and wonderfully presented. But has the issue been picked too clean? My inclination tells me to follow gut feelings. That is how we can truly offer our own insight and personality to the world. These, in the long run, separate us from the rest and give us a true unique style.
ReplyDeleteSandy Hartman
Www.eonwriter.com