What Good is a Prologue?

One of the topics of discussion amongst the Twitter writing community at the moment seems to be whether prologues are . . . good? Worthwhile? Useful? Tired?

I figured I could use my blog to explore my feelings about these, and provide a hotly relevant read to anyone who accidentally ended up here ;)

What's the deal with a prologue anyway?

In my mind, a prologue is a tidbit of information provided before the main story begins, separated most of the time by an expanse of time, such as in the past, but it can also be a forward look to a certain dramatic future scene like the climax. It's a useful tool for a writer to provide a pertinent glimpse into the backstory without having to devote the entire first chapter to setup and then dealing with a time lapse. I've also seen it used as a sort of recap of previous books in a series, such as when tv shows remind you with "Previously on--" . The classic scrolling Star Wars text could be considered a prologue. I prefer prologues to be short and sweet--a punch of dramatic information that evokes a strong emotion, whether one of dread, pity (for example, showing how the MC became an orphan), or hope.

Like any tool, prologues are made to be personalized to a writer's style and voice. I've seen an author refer to their prologue as Chapter 0, which I found charmingly clever. Some are wholly written in italics. Some are prophesies or recurring nightmares. Some don't make sense until the very end of the tale. Prologues can be the inviting toy you dangle before the cat.

What most readers seem to dislike in a prologue is an info dump. This breaks the time-honored rule of 'show, don't tell'. With a few exceptions, nobody wants to read a lengthy description of dates and times of previous battles that were won or lost, when a city was founded and under siege, pages upon pages of a family's bloodlines and who begat who or a list detailing decades of political strife between countries. That is the fastest way to convince a reader to skip right to the main story and the action. Imagine it this way--if a reader picks up your book and is turned off by the prologue, they're probably going to put it back, not see if Chapter One is any better.

Now, my expertise lies in fantasy and YA, so for certain genres such as historical fiction, this may be untrue. However, the concept of a short, to-the-point prologue still applies. The assumption for readers of a historical fiction is they have some base understanding of the period of time being covered; if not, some of the nuance of the story may be lost, and it's not up to the author to verse them on an entire historical period. And better yet, graphics such as family trees and timelines may lend themselves better than blocks of text.

And here's the thing, every statement above is my opinion. The greatest part of art is that no rules truly apply. Every aspect of writing and how it is done is up to the craftsman. Could someone write a whole book of only prologues? Sure, and call it a compilation of 'The Stories That Never Were'. It may even be a training tool for ways to utilize prologues in your books, highlighting different formats and techniques. This is still writing, still in book form, still valid.

Art is subjective, and the meaning of art is as well. Some use art to teach, some to simply tell a story. As a writer, how you want to do that is up to you. As a reader, if you love prologues, read them. If you don't, Chapter One is waiting for you.