AGoT - The Prologue compared to the Rest of the Book

[Cicero]

What do people think of the prologue to AGOT. It can not be denied that it is beautifully written prologue which was the first thing that hit me when I read the book initially (about 2 years ago).

For me the prologue works very well as a device to intrigue the reader and make them think that there is something big happening behind the scenes. Although others that I have talked to have disliked it as it adds nothing to AGOT itself (avoid spoilers to the rest of the series please) and some just hate the idea of ice zombie creatures.

Actually when I have recommeneded this book to people who do not read in the fantasy genre often I tell them to skip the prologue after many non-genre readers who I recommended told me that they had extreme doubts after the prologue.

I put this in the finished forum so that people can compare it to the rest of the book. Also I think it provides good juxtaposition to the book with the ICE (the others) and the FIRE (the birth of the dragons) at the start and finish of the book.

What are your feelings on the matter?

[Shannon]

That's an interesting observation Cicero, I hadn't even noticed that, about the ice and fire. I think by the time I finished it I'd pretty much forgotten all about the prologue. But it makes sense considering the name of the series, and sets up a theme perhaps?

Prologues are generally hit and miss. Sometimes they don't do a very good job of enticing readers but can alienate them instead. Other times, like with Perdido Street Station, the prologue was what grabbed me. With A Game of Thrones, I was confused by who's POV it was at first, but it wasn't a bad way to start the book because I found the whole thing about the Others one of the more interesting aspects of the novel.

[Sandi]

It was a good prologue, but I felt cheated that the whole thing about the Others wasn't explored more. The whole zombie thing at the wall was one of the best parts of the book and it wasn't enough.

[John]

The prologue is the only thing I've re-read so far (after reading all four published novels). It's an interesting decision, I think, to have a prologue that's so completely detached from the rest of the novel, that's basically setting up later books. I hadn't noticed the ice and fire shape to the book, but now that you mention it, it makes sense. I think it does a few things: it serves to set up some underlying tension: we know that somewhere in the world, dark things are stirring, even though things *seem* placid enough in the early going. It also gives, from the very beginning, a sense that we can't count on any of the characters sticking around for long. Granted, it's a prologue, so you may just look at them as throwaway characters, but between the jumping around between POVs and the way in which Martin will kill off characters in this and other novels in the series, I think it sends a subtle warning that way.

That said, I can see how people would feel cheated by it. We're set up for one thing and get another.

[[deleted user]]

John, you're right on the money. I would only add the point that the prologue is not the only part of the book that doesn't connect or get resolved. Martin must have been quite confident that he would hook his readers.

Would I recommend skipping the prologue for genre outsiders? I would not pick this book at all. There are a number of shorter books with real endings that would better appeal to newbies.

[theduckthief]

My first read through I was also confused by the prologue as it didn't seem to tie into the rest of the book. This time though I caught something.

The man Eddard beheads at the beginning is Gared, one of the black brothers who went out with Ser Waymar Royce. I can't remember which page I read this on but I'm sure it's him.

[[deleted user]]

Cicero, like you, I tell people who don't read fantast to skip the prologue and come back to it when they finish the book.