In some mysteries and thrillers, prologues show villains planning or doing fiendish deeds, or they might show a villain being abused as a child, or they might show some horrible event where the MC suffers a hideous loss which scars them. Some of these incidents could be woven in as back story. Others might just open the novel without the prologue. In historicals, the information in the prologue can set a scene, provide information relevant to the action of the story. Some people here say they never read prologues. I suppose they are interested in action as it develops, less so in its causes. Maybe they are rightly suspicious of writers who stick essential information into a separate spot.
It seems to me that prologues appear more often in contemporary genre novels. I always read prologues. They are usually well-written and part of the story, but I am beginning to wonder if they are lazy writing, if the writer just doesn’t want to weave the material into a back story.
What do you think of the artistry or lack thereof when writers resort to a prologue?
It seems to me that prologues appear more often in contemporary genre novels. I always read prologues. They are usually well-written and part of the story, but I am beginning to wonder if they are lazy writing, if the writer just doesn’t want to weave the material into a back story.
What do you think of the artistry or lack thereof when writers resort to a prologue?