SciFi stories that begin with exposition - a fan or not?

[Sid]

Books like Cyteen, Leviathan Wakes,even Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Do you like that gentle easing into the world with some background already set up, or do you prefer books that leave just the back cover information to begin with and jump right into the characters' stories and leave all exposition in-text?

[[deleted user]]

I believe that some exposition may be in order if the reader is introduced for the first time to an intricate or complicated background that is significant to understand the story. The Honorverse series by David Weber is an example of a story that needed (and gave) some explanatory background exposition.

[Teanka]

I didn't feel Leviathan Wakes provided a lot of information in the beginning of the book, there was lots of action right from the prologue. I like both ways as I believe it depends on the story.

[Jen]

I don't mind some exposition as a beginning, if the world is interesting enough. But I'm a fan of the 'show, don't tell' school of thought- the Dune universe is about as complex a world as has been written about in SF, but the story and the worlds unfold mostly through the characters and their actions (with exposition thrown in when needed).

[Michael]

It depends on the story and the author. I am a fan as Jen says of the slowly unfolding "show don't tell" as in Roger Zelazny's stories like "Lord of Light" and "Doorways in the Sand" which slowly unveils the story in flashbacks. Amber Chronicles where the character awakens with amnesia and the world of Amber is unveiled through Corwin's eyes. These stories leave more to the imagination.

[[deleted user]]

Michael wrote: "It depends on the story and the author. I am a fan as Jen says of the slowly unfolding "show don't tell" as in Roger Zelazny's stories like "Lord of Light" and "Doorways in the Sand" which slowly u..."

Steven Erikson took this whole idea of "show do not tell" to the extreme in his Malazan series to the point where you need to read it at least twice to understand what is going on. I did not like this extreme type despite very high ratings of the series from its readers.

[Trike]

Michael wrote: "It depends on the story and the author."

This is the most important factor.

There are some books, like Dragon's Egg or Code of the Lifemaker, which have brilliant prologues that are all about setting the scene. Neal Stephenson's Seveneves is calling to me because it has a terrific prologue, too.

I think they've taken "show don't tell" a little too far, because sometimes you NEED to tell stuff. It's just more efficient. But it's all in how you do it. I've seen lots of books which have massive infodumps everywhere but they're so seamlessly worked into the story you barely notice.

So, yeah -- if done well, bring 'em on. If not, leave 'em out.

[Brenda]

You have to keep a balance. Too much one way is as bad as too much the other. Also it depends on the story. A pastoral romance novel can get away with a much slower pace than a space opera.
It also depends on when the story was written. If a work was written before Amazon and the Look Inside feature, it might get off to a much slower start.

[John]

Interesting... as a writer, it never occurred to me to consider Amazon's "Look Inside" when thinking about what to put up front. I'm kind of on the fence with this. As Brenda says, you have to keep a balance; but sometimes I like to put something in a prologue that is more of a hint of something interesting to come, more like a "teaser" than an exposition.

[G.G.]

John wrote: "Interesting... as a writer, it never occurred to me to consider Amazon's "Look Inside" when thinking about what to put up front. I'm kind of on the fence with this. As Brenda says, you have to keep..."

I always thought the best prologues should be more of a teaser and never an exposition, but that's just me.

[Brenda]

I never read prologues. A work should begin at the beginning; don't call chapter 1 the prologue.
As to the Look Inside Feature -- go and scope it out on Amazon sometime. It truly is a flip into the first pages of the book. And so you have the title page, the page of indica (with the copyright notice and Library of Congress stuff), the dedication page and so on. And then there is the first page of the work. The goal is, clearly, to duplicate the bookstore experience. When you pick up a book in the store, what do you do? You look at the cover. You maybe read the stuff on the back, or the inside cover flap. And then you open it and read a bit.
That moment, that first page, is the only moment the writer controls. The cover art is selected by the publisher's Art Director. The back cover copy was written by Marketing. You, the writer, only control what is inside -- the text. This is your one and only moment. Use it wisely. Reach, grab the reader by the neck of his or her tee shirt, and twist. Never, never waste that first sentence, that first page. It may be the only chance you get.

[David]

I never read prologues either. For me, put any backstory/world building etc into the narrative, every time. I agree with you on a strong first sentence, too, Brenda; the most important hook in the book!

[Teanka]

How can you skip a prologue if it's an integral part of the story? Or maybe you don't read a book because it contains a prologue? What you describe is quick-paced action novels with very little background, not every novel works like that. And I don't use the look inside feature on amazon, at least not often.

[G.G.]

I never skip prologues. If it's too heavy on backstory, world building or other crap, I'll see it soon enough. Then I might skip it. And if it's real bad, I may even consider not buying the book.

[Brenda]

Well as I say, it depends on the book. But far, far too often writers begin with an unnecessary prologue. A book should be like a supermodel -- no extra fat on the frame. If you can cut it, you should.
Grab me fast, and grab me good, because otherwise I'm gone.

[Becky]

Brenda wrote: "Well as I say, it depends on the book. But far, far too often writers begin with an unnecessary prologue. A book should be like a supermodel -- no extra fat on the frame. If you can cut it, you should."

'Should' is subjective. I can say that there are too many authors who write spare prose and who should beef it up a little... but it comes down to the readers' tastes. What one person finds lacking, another may love.

I personally enjoy prologues if they are done well. I enjoy exposition if it is done well, but I generally prefer some exposition over a story that is too lean - I am only willing to do so much of the author's work myself. That's one reason that I'm not a big fan of the Zelazny books I've read - he relies heavily on the reader to understand what he's implying and fill in the gaps - and that's fine for some, but it's not enough for me.

[Trike]

I don't know why anyone would skip a prologue. Really good prologues (check out the ones I mentioned) are like short stories in and of themselves which can really set the tone. Really bad ones are like a warning sign you're about to date a psycho who will boil your rabbit.

[Tommy]

Trike wrote: "I don't know why anyone would skip a prologue. Really good prologues (check out the ones I mentioned) are like short stories in and of themselves which can really set the tone. Really bad ones are ..."

Agreed. To each their own, but to me skipping it is going to feel like skipping chapter one. I assume the writer wrote for a reason and that if I skip it I will miss something they didn't want me to.
If I don't want to read a prologue, I peak into a book and see if it has one. If it does, I move on for now. I will never skip it.

[Cheryl]

I agree with Becky and others about not skipping prologues. I like backstory, I like a little help... I've not been able to get into Zelazny, either. Also, if it's all about the action, it risks cutting out too much world-building. And I love creative worlds.

[John]

I think the prologue is a very useful tool for the writer. It can be used to "set the stage" for the story to come, and to provide a little taste of the backstory as well. I do NOT think it should consist of a long backstory narrative, and I appreciate Trike's comment above, that a well-written prologue can be like a short story in itself.

Case in point(and no, dear Moderators, I am not promoting my books -- this is from one I am writing now, that likely won't see publication for many more months): In the prologue a high-ranking woman naval officer of the Lunar Free State has just gotten word that her daughter and son-in-law (both scientists) have died in the tragic loss of a deep space research ship. She has been holding out hope that they might be rescued, but now all hope is gone. As she struggles to accept the loss, she hears a voice from the doorway, asking "What's wrong, Grandma?" She realizes that the burden of raising her granddaughter has just fallen on her as well. Her final thought in the prologue is How do you tell a six-year-old that Mommy and Daddy aren't coming home?

The actual STORY begins 14 years later, when that six-year-old (now age 20) begins her first year as a cadet at the Lunar Free State's Fleet Academy, following in her grandmother's footsteps.

Could I have skipped that prologue? Yes, probably so; but then readers of my previous books would have been left wondering what happened to the parents (who were characters in the last novel). And for those who didn't read the earlier books, it provides a little hint of backstory that will help them to understand the choices the girl / woman makes later.

I don't know -- you decide. Is that a good use for a prologue? Is it worth reading? Honestly, the main reason I'm here (on Goodreads) as a writer is to get a better understanding of what actual SF readers like in a story... :-)

[Becky]

John, without reading the book, I'd say that it could work either way, as prologue or worked into the main narrative. I like prologues though because they give the author and the reader a chance to see things from a different perspective than the main story.

For instance, in Leviathan Wakes, the prologue sets the stage with a girl in trouble, and then the main story picks up with the investigation to find her. That could have been included in the main story but I really appreciated seeing it from her perspective and it made her more real to me.

[Marianne]

It has never occurred to me to not read the prologue. I think it's an insult to the author to not do so. I generally find prologues useful or even essential to understanding the story.

[Becky]

How do you all feel about epilogues? I'm generally not as much a fan of epilogues as I am of prologues. I feel like they can feel tacked on and unnecessary more often than not, unless they are very good.

I don't think that the epilogue in Harry Potter was very good, but I think it was necessary for a sort of closure.

[Brenda]

Every book is different; there are different ways to get into each story.
What I am saying is that the prologue (and the epilogue too) is very often abused. Oh lord, the books that begin with a three page data dump from the Encyclpaedia Galactica! No no. Don't do that.

[John]

I do epilogues, too...

... but then, I am trying to write a series and still make each book as a stand-alone novel. I've more or less been using the epilogues to hint at what's coming in the next book in the series.

What do you readers think about that -- WITHOUT getting into the issue of whether you like series books or not (which issue has been thoroughly beaten to death, stuffed, mounted, and hung on the wall in several other threads). ;-)

[Brenda]

My idea is that a book (every single book) should be a unity. Like the poem by Archibald MacLeish -- palpable and mute, like a fruit in your hand. It should be a perfect peachy package, all nice and round and sweet and ripe. Here: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poetr...
There should not be sticky-outy bits that need to be tucked in, or untidy extras that you have to have to get into it by hook or by crook, or the author taking you aside at the beginning or the end and explaining stuff.
This is in an ideal universe, of course. Sometimes stuff intervenes. Like, WW2, which forced a paper shortage that cut THE LORD OF THE RINGS into 3 volumes.
Explanations about what happened before (or after) should be worked into the text. (It would astonish you, how little the reader needs.) Real extras like the history of Middle Earth through the previous 2 ages could be put onto your web page, for the true fans to drool over.
Lois Bujold is the master of this. Almost all her Vorkosigan novels are tied to each other; there is a development of the characters from one to the next that means they cannot be swapped in and out. However, each one can be read alone. She makes sure of this, by finding beta readers for each one who have never read any of the previous volumes. I think she is up to 14 or so by now. I began, as I recall, with #8 or 9. Didn't faze me a bit, I was happy as a clam, and immediately dug up the other 13 and read them.

[K.]

I have no problem with it, considering that in most cases, you're asking a writer to pen at least one more book worth of information they can get out in about 5-10 pages of exposition. The Silmarillion, for instance, great information once you're obsessed with the world, but not for the average reader and unnecessary to deal with unless you're compelled. Most of these volumes that would be created to avoid exposition at the start of a book/series are bonus materials that attract little readership and are only of interest to a small sect of obsessed fans and researchers/historians.

Save your time, the readers time...go ahead, but keep it short. Most of it should happen through the narrative. They will catch on.

[Becky]

Of course every book is different - just as every reader is. I won't disagree that pro- and epilogues are often overused, or badly used, but I can't think of any book I've ever read that has an actual prologue that's just info dumping. Can you give an example, Brenda?

I'm not a previewer reader. I don't use the Look Inside feature, I don't stand in bookstores and start a book to see if I'll like it. I often times don't even read a book's description. I like to go into a book with as little info as possible, and just see where it takes me. Maybe that translates to a higher tolerance for prologues, but I tend to like the kind of opener that shows me something that will be tied in or important later. It's like the author is trusting me to appreciate the story they want to tell, in the way that they want to tell it.

But if it seems lazy or gratuitous, it won't work for me. But it's only a chapter, and I can be patient enough with that. If that kind of writing carries on into the main story, then I have a bigger problem.

----
John, I personally don't like that kind of use for epilogues. If you want the books to be able to stand on their own within the series, then that's what they should do, IMO. Throwing a 'but wait, there's more...' in as an epilogue would just annoy me as a reader. It seems like it would basically be a tacked on cliffhanger, and I'm not a fan of that technique.

[[deleted user]]

I'm not sure why people don't like prologues, if well done, and especially why a reader wouldn't want a brief epilogue to add an additional resolution to a story. But you can see the prologue before you buy the book, and if you don't like it don't buy it. Otherwise, you bought the book, paid for it, you like to read, so read the damn thing. It won't kill you, and you may enjoy it.

[Becky]

Ken wrote: "I'm not sure why people don't like prologues, if well done, and especially why a reader wouldn't want a brief epilogue to add an additional resolution to a story."

Maybe an open ending is better. I'd much rather an interpretable end than a bad one. Many people prefer not to read the last coda of Stephen King's Dark Tower book because they don't like the way he ended it. I'm not one of them, but I can understand it.

[Micah]

Brenda wrote: "I never read prologues. A work should begin at the beginning; don't call chapter 1 the prologue..."

The logic of that doesn't work for me. If you think prologues are really Chapter 1 then skipping them is consciously skipping Chapter 1 just because the author called it something other than "Chapter 1."

That's not to say I don't have issues with a lot of prologues. They've been poorly used quite often. In some cases they are actually Forwards where the author talks about things outside the story itself. In other cases they are nothing but exposition. In yet other cases they are pre-story that ends up not being relevant.

But sometimes they make complete structural and story sense. Their intent is to present material that supports and enhances the story, but which are extremely awkward to put in the main story...events that POV characters don't know about but which influence the plot; action by characters unrelated to the main characters but which sets up the story; important but seemingly unrelated scenes which, in the end, turn out to foreshadow major plot twists (Iain M. Banks's Use of Weapons comes to mind).

True, they should be used for a specific purpose. But just because some authors fail to do so doesn't negate the value of every prologue. Skip them and you fail to get the whole story.

[Micah]

Brenda wrote: "...a book (every single book) should be a unity...like a fruit in your hand. It should be a perfect peachy package, all nice and round and sweet and ripe...There should not be sticky-outy bits that need to be tucked in, or untidy extras "

Every peach has an untidy extra: the pit. And oranges have the skin.

But...you could actually think of prologues as the skin and epilogues as the pit. A good prologue binds the juicy bit together just as a peach's skin binds its flesh. The flesh of the fruit is what we're there for, what we consume with relish. And an epilogue is the pit of a fruit, or its seed. It tells you what comes after, and hints at new beginnings! (But you don't really devour it like you do the fleshy part.)

;D

[[deleted user]]

Micah wrote: "you could actually think of prologues as the skin and epilogues as the skin. A good prologue binds the juicy bit together. The flesh of the fruit is what we're there for, what we consume with relish. And an epilogue is the pit of a fruit, or its seed. It tells you what comes after, and hints at new beginnings! (But you don't really devour it like you do the fleshy part.)..."

Well said.

[Brenda]

The classic example of the data-dumpy beginning is the SECOND FOUNDATION, by Isaac Asimov. Which begins with an Encyclopaedia Galctica entry, because he could not figure out any way to get the info to the reader briskly enough.
JRRT is not perfect this way either. The first chapter of LOTR is OK but is quickly followed by the long "Shadow of the Past" chapter.
If you have to have front matter in this way, think of it like the crawl at the beginning of a STAR WARS movie. It should slide by fast, and give only what you need to know to get on. One page. One paragraph, if you can manage it. And make it as hooky, as unputdownable, as humanly possible.
It is instructive to look at a number of SF or F novels together, and read the first page of all of them. You will see what I mean.

[Tommy]

Becky wrote: "How do you all feel about epilogues? I'm generally not as much a fan of epilogues as I am of prologues. I feel like they can feel tacked on and unnecessary more often than not, unless they are very..."

Epilogues tend to bother me more than prologues because I like to leave endings at least somewhat open. Almost like that horrible cliche, "And they all lived happily ever after". I'd take that, but of course, written more cleverly, over an epilogue in most cases. Let me know it ended and they moved on with their lives, I don't need the specifics haha. I'm not the same way with back story though. That said, if it's written and I'm reading the book, I'm gonna read it.

As for the epilogue in Harry Potter, I was not a fan. I would've preferred not to know all those details because I don't think it gave me much aside from the details. I didn't dislike it though, and when I reread Deathly Hollows, I still read the epilogue.

[Becky]

Hmm, I haven't read any of the Foundation books (though I have the ebooks and mean to do that at some point), but in general, I think that an expositiony prologue is more tolerable in a mid-series book than in a series opening book. At least for me. I figure I already have an idea of the setting and writing style and feel of the story, so if the author thinks that this is a good place to provide some more backstory before jumping into the next volume, I'm ok with that. But everyone's tolerance will vary. I trust the author to know what they're doing and go along with it. If I find that in the end they didn't - well it's not like that one chapter cost me any more time (relatively) than the other chapters in the book. And if it's REALLY poorly done or boring, I'll just call it quits - but it depends on the book. If I think there might be a worthwhile payoff in the end, I'll stick with it. If not, I have no qualms about ditching it.

[Becky]

Tommy wrote: "BEpilogues tend to bother me more than prologues because I like to leave endings at least somewhat open. Almost like that horrible cliche, "And they all lived happily ever after". I'd take that, but of course, written more cleverly, over an epilogue in most cases. Let me know it ended and they moved on with their lives, I don't need the specifics haha. I'm not the same way with back story though. That said, if it's written and I'm reading the book, I'm gonna read it.

As for the epilogue in Harry Potter, I was not a fan. I would've preferred not to know all those details because I don't think it gave me much aside from the details. I didn't dislike it though, and when I reread Deathly Hollows, I still read the epilogue. "

Agree... though for me, it wasn't so much the details of where everyone ended up (though some of those were cheesy too) but more of the style of how it was conveyed. It was like there was a check-list of characters to be accounted for, and each one got their little bit of closure. It just didn't fit with the rest of the story throughout the series.

But I still read it when I re-read the books, too.

[Tommy]

Has anyone here read ? I'm curious what you would think of this type of prologue/epilogue dynamic. The main story is about a kid named Will Henry who stays with and apprentices for a monstrumologist(one who studies and, when necessary, hunts monsters) in the late 1800s.
The premise, though is that the story is told in journals allegedly written by Mr. William Henry and discovered after his death. The prologue/epilogue are the author, Rick Yancey, receiving the notebooks, investigating the claims in the journals, and trying to figure out more about the man.

They're very well written, add a layer to the story that I really love, but just would genuinely not fit withing the narration.

Also, the books are just fantastic. Well, 3 or 4 at least. I still have to read the final one.

[Brenda]

I have not read MONSTRUMOLOGIST but I can tell you that there are always construction problems revolving around books that are in journal format, letter format, or 'as told to' style. For one thing, you know the teller/writer/narrator cannot have been slain by the villain/dragon/landslide/whatever, and so a slight tension is removed.
This is not a problem -- there are mounds of very successful epistolatory novels -- but you just have to be aware of it.

[Trike]

"Know" is not a guarantee in SFF. I've read a few books narrated by people who have died, and there are a number of movies that have done so, as well.

[Tommy]

Trike wrote: ""Know" is not a guarantee in SFF. I've read a few books narrated by people who have died, and there are a number of movies that have done so, as well."

Yeah, a few spring to mind immediately. I do get where Brenda is coming from, though. An ending like that is hard to tackle. It can be done brilliantly, of course, since really there are no unbreakable rules.
And I will assume Will Henry will not die in the main story of the series since we're hearing it after his death as a very old man. But, god, I am loving the series regardless of anything and particularly loving the prologues and epilogues, so I thought it was worth bringing up here.

[Rainer]

Brenda wrote: "I never read prologues. A work should begin at the beginning; don't call chapter 1 the prologue.
As to the Look Inside Feature -- go and scope it out on Amazon sometime. It truly is a flip into th..."

Never read the prologues? You're not the only one. Quite a number of editors and agents say that it's no longer in vogue.

I start reading the first page of text. If it's a prologue, so be it. It's there for a reason.

There are times when the prologue sets up the story - or a series, and may have nothing to do with current timeline of chapter 1.

[Brenda]

Hmm, that is not a reason I have heard before to skip prologues. So now we have three reasons to not use them:

1. They are easily abused, especially by bad writers (Encyclopaedia Galactica)

2. They delay the actual start of the true story, thus driving away readers. (Look Inside on Amazon)

3. No longer in fashion. Presumably this last is temporary and some day it will come back in.

[Becky]

You have to write the story the way it feels right to you, Nathan. You're not going to please everyone no matter what you do. There's no right answer.

I will say that I do not read introductions - meaning the ones that the author or some other person writes to tell you about the story that you're about to read. Often they spoil something about the experience for me. Either they interpret something in a way that I might not have, or they give away actual story or plot details (intros in classics are guilty of this, as they assume that it's a classic because everyone's read them or something), but I stopped reading them years and years ago because I like to just experience the story on its own.

That's also why I don't watch adaptations, or at least will wait until after I've read the book if I can. I dislike someone else's interpretation and vision coloring my experience of the story.

[Brenda]

No, I would not read the prelude, nor a prolog. Sorry. Having both seems like overkill. Surely one is enough?

However, I had a glance back at my own works to see what I myself did. And (as I expect) prefaces and prologues are rare, although there is sometimes a kickoff quotation of some sort. The only book of mine that I could find anything like a prologue is this one:
http://bookviewcafe.com/bookstore/sam...

I have 4 lines of a poem: to declare the theme.
And then there are 2 paragraphs quoted from a historical figure's journal, to supply the background info. Maybe a thousand words? That is the absolute outside I would tolerate in front, and I cheated here: I selected one of the best memoirists who ever lived, and his most famous journal entry. It is hooky, the way flycasting lures are hooky.

[YouKneeK]

I recently finished the series The Kingdoms of Thorn and Bone which begins with The Briar King. The first book had both a prelude and a prologue.

The prelude consisted of a short story set 2,223 years before the beginning of the main story. It explained how the humans broke free from their enslavement by a race called the Skasloi. Aspects of that event are referred to many times throughout the course of the series and, as I read through the series, I found myself constantly thinking back to that prelude because it took on deeper meaning as the series progressed and new things were revealed. Conversely, the main story itself also took on a deeper meaning when viewed in light of the prelude.

The prologue was set 8 years before the beginning of the main story, and it told a brief story of an event involving two of the central characters when they were 7 and 8 years old. It was an important event in those characters’ lives, although the full extent of its importance wasn’t revealed until the final book in the series.

I could have understood and enjoyed the main story if I’d skipped the prelude and the prologue, but I would have missed out on the depth and nuances that they added. Besides, they were written well and they helped provide some world building through the use of brief and interesting stories without any exposition.

Skipping prologues because they might be poorly written or misused doesn’t seem like a very rational choice. The entire book might be poorly written. With that attitude, one might as well stop reading altogether. Why skip something that might prove to be an integral part of the story and deny yourself the opportunity for a richer reading experience? I’m pretty difficult to please when it comes to the endings of stories, but I still read the endings of every book. I’m not going to stop reading the last chapter of every book just because I’m afraid I won’t like the ending.

Some stories benefit from prologues and some don’t. Some prologues don’t add much to the story but, if they’re written well and interesting to read, I don’t really care. If I enjoy an author’s writing and the story they’re telling, then I want more of it, not less. Bare-bones, fast-paced books have their place and I’ve enjoyed books like that. I also enjoy rich, detailed books, with lots of extra side-stories and character moments that aren’t strictly necessarily to tell the main story. There’s no one story-telling method that’s “right”. Variety helps keep reading interesting.

[Ken]

I don't skip prologues. They're a good flavor splash, a zesty lemon curl on the rim of the drink. You don't skip that.

On the other hand, I dislike exposition completely. I dislike it in the beginning, the middle, the end, and with green eggs & ham. I feel that it's an unnatural voice for the characters and breaks immersion. It heralds bad writing, in my opinion. If an author needed to drop a block of exposition in so that the reader isn't totally lost, then they need to revisit their text and make some edits.

[[deleted user]]

You will excuse my question, but I am French-Canadian and, while I am fluent in English, the nuance between 'prologue' and 'exposition' escapes me. I am presently writing a SF novel set in the 41st Century, in which I wrote at the start a two-page introduction (I called it that much) to briefly explain how Humanity evolved in the two milleniums between now and the 41st Century and at what point it is in terms of space exploration. Would you consider it a 'prologue', an 'exposition' or an 'introduction'?

[Don]

If the prologue serves a purpose, like cliff notes earlier significant events or like in a Michener novel it is a kinda whole 'nother book.

[Brenda]

A story should be like chocolate chip ice cream. The nuggets of fact should be evenly distributed. If you bought a carton of chocolate chip ice cream and opened it to find a bar of chocolate lying on top of vanilla ice cream, you would have a legitimate cause of complaint.
So -- chop all that stuff you want to put in small, and mix it in good. There are lots of ways of conveying information short of sitting the reader down and saying, "Middle Earth was left over from when the Eldar were fighting Morgoth, back about 5 thousand years ago." Read LOTR and see how much stuff Tolkien simply doesn't tell you. The story rolls along fine without all those geneaologies and histories; if you want to know more about Elrond or Earendil you read the appendices, or pick up THE SILMARILLION.