Often a prologue is written from the point of view of a character who otherwise doesn't get a viewpoint in the book.  Or it takes place somewhere other than the main setting.  Or outside the the main chronology of the story.  Basically, a prologue lets you do something outside the "rules" that you set for the rest of the book.  Readers implicitly understand that Chapter One is a new beginning.  So a prologue can give you the freedom to show some piece of information that would be difficult or impossible to reveal in the main body of the story. 

Using a prologue to tell a backstory is generally not advisable.    It indicates laziness on the part of the writer (why didn't they work the information into the main story?) It's also boring (with very few exceptions).  But lots of people do this, and I think that's part of the reason prologues suffer a certain stigma. 

There are good reasons to use a prologue.  But if you don't have a good reason to use a prologue, don't write one. 
Prologues tend to make it more difficult to hook the reader, because it's almost like starting over when they get to Chapter 1.  Instead of having to write one great opening, you have to write two.

A good prologue has tension and drama, just like any other opening scene/chapter.

Hi,
I appreciate the insight, I may yet write one after all, as my character does not have a first person point of view. However I could yet write a complete chapter written in first person POV of a side character thinking back in a diary, kinda like Watson with Sherlock, partly for a great hook and also to prepare the reader as I feel my story is  fairly complex. (or maybe I'm lazy :-)
Q.X.T. your picture cracks me up, I always think of Groucho Marx.

Cheers

D A Reynolds

d a reynolds wrote:

Q.X.T. your picture cracks me up, I always think of Groucho Marx.

Thanks, D.A.,
Of course, QXTR is merely my nome de plume. I am, in actual fact, the lost Marx brother . . . Karl.

Best,
Q

tristania wrote:

I think the truth is, "editors hate prologues that suck."

I don't think that you, or I, or anyone know what "editors" like or don't like. There are many editors, surely they all have different likes and dislikes. As for "prologues that suck," such a determination is entirely subjective. Of course, no one thinks their own prolog sucks. The point is, there's an opinion out there that many editors don't  like prologs, period, sucky or otherwise, because they delay the start of the plot. Again, I'm not saying I share this opinion. But if you care to look, you'll find many who do. Lots of people live by these little rules: love 'em or hate 'em, at least you might like to know 'em.

Q

Last edited by Q.X.T.Rhazmeulen (07-02-2012 23:38:39)

tristania wrote:

Q.X.T.Rhazmeulen wrote:

tristania wrote:

I think the truth is, "editors hate prologues that suck."

I don't think that you, or I, or anyone know what "editors" like or don't like. There are many editors, surely they all have different likes and dislikes. As for "prologues that suck," such a determination is entirely subjective. Of course, no one thinks their own prolog sucks. The point is, there's an opinion out there that many editors don't  like prologs, period, sucky or otherwise, because they delay the start of the plot. Again, I'm not saying I share this opinion. But if you care to look, you'll find many who do. Lots of people live by these little rules: love 'em or hate 'em, at least you might like to know 'em.

Q

Hey QXT--The statement was made with tongue in cheek.  I didn't mean to suggest that I claim some inside knowledge of what editors like or dislike.  I would like to believe that most editors appreciate good writing, whether or not it includes a prologue, and eschew bad writing, whether or not it includes a prologue.  While no one thinks that their own prologue "sucks" (not a word I would actually use in a review, by the way), others can point out problems and help the writer improve their prologue and make it work.     

I am aware of the "rule" that editors don't like prologues.  I've also read many published books with prologues.  It's very common in the fantasy genre, especially.  If it works for a particular story, I wouldn't discourage someone from writing one on the basis that some editors may personally dislike them.  There is no way to anticipate the personal biases of editors, and that shouldn't be what drives the writer, anyway. 

I personally think that new writers who put too much stock in rules like "editors don't like prologues" are doing themselves a disservice.  Sometimes the only way to learn the reasoning behind the rules is to break them, and then see what it does to your story.  But I suppose if following "the rules" gives you a comfortable place to start, that's fine.

I love prologues. I consider them a great courtesy; an invitation onto the front porch before the story starts.

I always read them carefully. Maybe because the ones that've made the cut of editors don't like prologues are the cream of the crop?

A prologue http://www.amazon.com/Shining-City-Nove … ining+city that has stuck with me for a long time is that of Shining City by Seth Greenland. The book was also great.

Memphis Trace

Series sci fi or fantasy. The prologue brings the reader up to date. If I've read the preceding books, I'll skip (or skim) the prologue.

If a prologue is a snooze fest, I'll skip to the first chapter and see if it's any better. Most likely I just won't read further.

But I don't enjoy reading. I did enjoy it pre-Lyme, but now it's work, and if an author makes me work too hard for too little gain, I'll stop. And often a prologue stops me.