Skip to main content

Prologues?

 


There seems to be varying opinions about prologues. Some readers hate them, won’t even read them. Why? It is part of the story. If the author had titled it “Chapter 1” instead of “Prologue” they would have read it without question. I guess it is because people feel that if it is a prologue, it is not really part of the story and they don’t want to waste their time on preliminaries. I am sure those same people would not read the “Acknowledgements” or the “Forward” or the “Afterword” either.

I can understand being anxious to get to the story. Something made you interested enough to buy or to checkout or to borrow this book. You want to get to the meat. But the prologue (if there is one) is part of the story. It often tells us something about a character or a situation that we may need to know later. It may be there to set the emotional stage for the story. It is a gem, a kernel of information. Then again, I have read some prologues that were not all that enlightening or useful to the story. That just comes down to bad writing. You should not put anything in the story that doesn’t need to be there.

If the writer is doing their job, the prologue can set the hook of the reader’s interest. In The Book Thief by Markus Zusak, the prologue is narrated by Death who tells us of the three times he met the main character. This gives us information about the character and feel of the story, but it also foreshadows what is to come. In Game of Thrones by George R. R. Martin, the prologue paints a chilling scene that foreshadow later events and then what happens in the first chapter is a natural result. Could these stories have survived without the prologues? I suppose so, with some added exposition, but that would have made the stories weaker, not stronger. More exposition means telling, not showing.

If you are a writer and you want to add a prologue, by all means do so. But, like anything else you put into a story, you have to ask yourself if it really makes the story better. If it does not; don’t do it.

Star Liner

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A Child of the . . .

  What was it like to grow up as a child in the 90s? How about the 1940’s? Thinking about a child growing up in each different decade, conjures up images in my mind. But that is all they are: images. I was a child in the 1960’s. I can tell you what it felt like to be growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, but what it felt like to me is not what the history books remember. History will tell you the 60’s was about the Viet Nam War, civil rights, and the space race. The 70’s was Disco and Watergate. I remember being aware of all of those things, but to me this era was about finding time to play with my friends, something I probably share with a child of any decade. It was about navigating the social intricacies of school.   It was about the Beatles, Three Dog Night, The Moody Blues, The Animals, Jefferson Airplane. It was Bullwinkle, the Wonderful World of Color, and Ed Sullivan. There are things that a kid pays attention to that the grown-ups don’t. Then there are things the adults ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Bureaucrats

  I am one of those nameless, faceless bureaucrats. Yes, that is my job. Though I actually have a name; I even am rumored to have a face. Bureau is the French word for desk, so you could say bureaucrats are “desk people.” In short, I work for the government. I sometimes have to deliver unpleasant news to a taxpayer. I sometimes have to tell them that the deed they recorded won’t work and they will have to record another one with corrections. Or we can’t process their deed until they pay their taxes. I can understand why some of these things upset people. The thing is, we don’t decide these things. It is not the bureaucrats that make the laws. The legislature writes the laws. We are required to follow the law.   If you are going to get mad at someone, get mad at the legislature. Or maybe get mad at the voters who voted the legislature in (That’s you, by the way). The same thing happens when the voters vote in a new district, or vote for a bond, or a new operating levy for an ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Telephonicus domesticus

Alexander Graham Bell’s telephone from 1877 bears about as much similarity to the modern smart phone as an abacus bears to a PC or Mac. There are just about as many leaps in technology in both cases. It’s funny how a major jump in technology happens (like the actual invention of the phone). Then there are some refinements over a few years or decades until it gets to a useful stable form. Then it stays virtually the same for many years with only minor innovations. The telephone was virtually unchanged from sometime before I was born until I was about forty. Push-buttons were replacing the rotary dial, but that was about it. (Isn’t it interesting though that when we call someone, we still call it “dialing?” I have never seen a dial on a cell phone.) Cell phones were introduced and (once they became cheap enough) they changed the way we phone each other. New advancements followed soon after, texting and then smart phones. Personal computers were also becoming commonplace and wer...
Post a Comment
Read more