Prologue vs. Epilogue: What’s Your Opinion?

One of the most stressed “rules” of writing is that a prologue is a no-no. Agents hate them. Many readers wont even bother to read them because they think a prologue is a bunch of first-page exposition that contributes nothing to the story.

Well, if you read War Sonnets don’t skip the prologue.

Why?

Every good story needs an opening hook (another writing rule) that will grab the reader’s attention and make them want to keep reading. The opening line of my first chapter is this: “Leo leaned against a tent post, watched the army camp come to life, and prepared for the day ahead.”

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.

I couldn’t figure out a way to make that opening line grab the reader without it seeming forced. So I added a prologue with this first line:

“F*ck this war.”

Did I get your attention? The prologue I wrote for War Sonnets is meant to get you listening, and to foreshadow one of the pivotal moments in the novel. I think it’s ever-so-much better than beginning at Chapter 1.

Dave Chesson of Kindlepreneur explains it like this:

..“A prologue comes at the beginning of the book and serves to set up the main story in some way. …a prologue is part of the overall narrative, but is commonly set apart from the main storyline in one or more ways. For example, a prologue in a novel is often written from a minor character's point of view. But the information conveyed should be essential to the story. It's just provided in a way that would seem unnatural or forced when put in the first chapter."

Lately writers seem to have exchanged the prologue for an epilogue.

Dave tells us:

"…An epilogue comes directly after the last chapter in a work of fiction or, sometimes, a narrative nonfiction work (i.e. memoir or autobiography). It's a continuation of the main story but should be thought of as a winding down of sorts. The main conflict of the literary work should already be wrapped up by the time the reader comes to the epilogue. But, if there are some minor loose ends 
to tie up or the need for a bit of reflection on the events just passed, an epilogue is a good idea.”

I can live with that. But doesn’t it seem strange to you that adding a prologue is a no-no but an epilogue seems to be essential? How is adding extraneous exposition to end of the book any better than adding it to the beginning? By the end of a novel you will know whether you want to bother with the “happily ever after” stuff. It might be okay for a “twenty years later” sort of thing but why not just make that a regular chapter? And I’m telling you now, it had better be something really important for it to happen twenty years from the end and still be relevant.

Oh sure, I’ll read it, but only because I guilt myself into reading to the bitter end. For me, a good prologue can whet your appetite. An epilogue is more like that overstuffed logey “why-did-I-eat-so-much” feeling you get at the end of a Thanksgiving dinner.

(For the record, another “rule” about writing is that there are no rules; some of the most popular/best selling fiction breaks the rules all to pieces. I like that rule. It takes the burden of rule-following off the already-stressed writer and allows them to let the literary juices flow. But this no prologue, yes epilogue thing has my head spinning.)

I have read a lot of great books lately, written by both well-known and lesser-known authors, all with epilogues. I just finished what would have been a 5-star quality novel until I got to the epilogue. It was a huge letdown and left me feeling like the writer felt obligated to write something, because—after all—we need an epilogue!

But maybe that’s just me.

What are youre thoughts? Prologue? Epilogue? Yea or nay?

^{*feature image credit}