Editors, I’m told, don’t like
prologues.
A story needs to start in the present.
Prologue forces us readers to scroll back before we’re allowed to knock on the
door. “Just let me in, blast the past,” the exasperated editor is saying,
taking on the readers’ cause.
Books of yore had no such impatience.
We live and read in a rushing age.
How do you feel about prologues?
My personal view is that short
prologues pique my interest, similar to the back cover teasers meant to sell
the story. Long ones, if well written, captivate. But then it’s a letdown when
they end and it feels like I must now shift gears to a new, (as in the now)
story. If I make the adjustment, I’m glad for the prologue. If I lose the
thread right then, it’s a fail.
The current writerly wisdom is to
sprinkle back story in bits throughout the narrative of the “now.”
That’s fine. But it isn’t the only way
to make sense of the present.
"What's past is prologue" is
a quotation of William Shakespeare from his play The Tempest. In contemporary
use, the phrase stands for the idea that history sets the context for the
present.
Prologues have a legitimate place in
literature.*
*I used the Palatino
Linotype font in this post on purpose. Old and relevant.
