date
newest »

To quote one of my favorite authors and YouTubers, Jenna Moreci, think about what your book is about and see if you need it for any reason, if not, dump it. I agree with Brandon that most authors use it as a crutch, the same with epilogues if the story over don't write more just to make the book longer. Not to disregard what the person above me said, but not all authors who write them are just writing a backstory; they are part of the story. Lisa Jackson is one who's prologues, which she doesn't write all the time, are a pivotal part of the story. I have read books with beautifully written prologues and the story itself was shit. One I read was ok, but the character never came in the story, so what was the point? I never skip any part of a book; I read cover to cover. In my book, "Second Time's The Harm," I have a prologue only because it explains how and why she was fired. Here is the link for Jenna's video... https://youtu.be/RAyXMU-fgP8

But if the prologue as you say is part of the story then there is no need to isolate that part as being the prologue now is there? Why not just make it the first chapter?
I haven't come across that many unwelcome epilogues. Usually it tells a bit about the characters lives after main plot. That's nice, in my experience it's more often the case that the story just cuts off too abruptly. The ending of the "soldies son series" (https://www.goodreads.com/series/4035...) always comes to mind as one of the most frustrating endings in this regard, it cuts off on the way back just one city removed from getting back home. I love how Sarah J. Maas does it right and actually rounds off things nicely. But I'm not sure if she uses epilogues to do so, so it's also not necessary for that part as well to be separated as an epilogue.

I would imagine a prologue is there to set the tone of the world or the problem within it that will need to be addressed, without actually introducing any of the characters yet. That would make sense why you would want to separate it from just being chapter 1.

So in this case, it wasn't a spoiler, but a portent of things to come based on that which has passed.

I would prefer that what you describe to be integrated into the story, you now where the current characters find out about things that happened in the past and then instead of having it told (often in excessive details) in the prologue just have it mentioned more like a footnote than a whole thing.
It's also annoying to have another story being told in the prologue and then when you're actually getting into it cuts off and a different story starts and what you were reading suddenly is (ancient) history. And if you don't get into it it's just that much more of a chore to get trough. It also opens the doors for prequels, who doesn't hate those as you already know the outcome. If a story has room for prequels it should have started there in the first place (dear authors stick to chronological story telling please!).
And yes there is also a chance that it spoils things sometimes not even just a little. I've even had it happen that the story catches up to the prologue part at the very end of the book. Man that pisses me off. (authors really should take more care to not piss off their readers, in general)
I just started reading the 10th volume of Re:Zero. So I read the prologue which is a flash forward promising the protagonist finally coming in direct contact with the entity that has her hand wrapped around his heart disallowing him to die.
But here I am now just basically waiting to get to that point making it more of a chore going trough all the stuff that comes before. (authors should just stick to telling things chronologically, in general)