Epilogues?

[Majyk]

I’m almost finished with my novel, and was wondering about epilogues. I’ve heard stuff on prologues, but never epilogues. Are they alright to use, or should I try to avoid them or something?

[Majyk]

Yeah, I like them, too. It sort of makes the ending more final for me.

[Starry]

I'd say that epilogues are fine, as long as A) you are not JK Rowling and B) you don't outline exactly who has married whom and all of the characters' children.

[Majyk]

I'd say that epilogues are fine, as long as A) you are not JK Rowling and B) you don't outline exactly who has married whom and all of the characters' children.

*shudders* Don't worry, I would never!
:p

Thanks ^^

[Shaun]

Epilogues are sort of like little goodies for readers who liked the story. Prologues are like telling the reader he or she is too retarded to understand the book by itself. So, put that way you should include an epilogue provided you feel you can give the reader either closure or if you want to leave a small plot point untied for a possible sequel. They're not necessary, though, but they don't generally hurt a novel unless they're stupid and useless.

[Majyk]

Alright. Now I have a better idea what I'm doing. Thanks guys.

[ScottyMcGee]

One thing I've never been sure of: Do you need a prologue if you write an epilogue?

I have an epilogue in my story, but no prologue. I just thought that maybe it'd look rather unbalanced or if it was proper to have both.

I see epilogues as a transition between one book to another OR as a final reflection on the conclusion of the book.

[Shaun]

Andy will disagree but here is the one rule you have to take from me because it comes from Orson Scott Card:

Never write a prologue. If you want to do it, do it for yourself, but don't put it in your book. Prologues are literally just there so you can tell the reader "well, I'm too lazy to put this supposedly valid information into the actual story, so here you go...oh and I think you're too stupid to get the rest of the novel, so I want to make sure I hold your hand while you read the story to come". Don't do them. There is almost never a good reason to have a prologue. Ever. OSC says so, and that guy is a damn good writer. Hell it's in his book :P

[Carraka]

Epilogues either provide closing or leave some plot possibility for the next book. Maybe both.

--

Prologues -- I can't think of a situation where they're necessary, but I have one, and I think if I removed it, I would have to go to a whole lot of trouble to do a whole score of scenes that wouldn't make sense, in order to introduce the same idea. Lset can't meet a horsey-thing until her father gets one. Horsey-thing must be established as extremely dangerous, if not outright evil before she meets the horsey-thing. And I don't feel like second-hand tales will cut it.

I guess I'm freakin' lazy. You could even skip my prologue if you wanted to, although you might not get the same view on character growth. Or be hooked. That was probably a secondary reason. I'm not sure if it works, though.

[Shaun]

I don't read prologues. They're sort of an insult to me as a reader.

And of course OSC is a jerk. He's stuck up and crazy religious, but the guy knows writing.

[Lykaios]

What about prologues that are like a part of the story but at a different time or show something happening that the rest of the book is based around?

I've quite a few read books like that, they don't tell you the story in brief or insult your intelligence or anything, just show something from another angle etc. Are they acceptable?

[Shaun]

Nope. Those insult my intelligence too. If it's so integral to the overall story, then make it a part of the overall story. Otherwise, leave it out.

[Majyk]

This seems to have moved from epilogues, to prologues...

[Crocolyle]

Andy will disagree but here is the one rule you have to take from me because it comes from Orson Scott Card:

Never write a prologue. If you want to do it, do it for yourself, but don't put it in your book. Prologues are literally just there so you can tell the reader "well, I'm too lazy to put this supposedly valid information into the actual story, so here you go...oh and I think you're too stupid to get the rest of the novel, so I want to make sure I hold your hand while you read the story to come". Don't do them. There is almost never a good reason to have a prologue. Ever. OSC says so, and that guy is a damn good writer. Hell it's in his book :P

I personally am not a fan of prologues, mainly because they look pretentious (like trilogies... it always has to be a trilogy because of Tolkein's precedent) and usually are just an excuse to have an info-dump. I think typically stories are stronger without prologues. I don't really see them as an insult to my intelligence... just kind of dull.

On another note, OSC has made use of prologues before. He begins the Homecoming series with one. Fun Fact: Homecoming is a retelling of the Book of Mormon.

Also, I wouldn't say that OSC's words are law. He himself has a lot of weaknesses as a writer. Ender's Game is excellent, but outside of that, a lot of his writing is weak, particularly the later books in the Ender Series and his Ender's Shadow series. While his dialogue is lively and his characters and plots are interesting, he has many flaws even in those areas. Many of his characters talk the same exact way and tell the same sort of jokes. His characters often do things that make no sense, despite their usually excellent characterization, and sometimes seem kind of cartoony (like sometimes his books have the pacing and feel of a film I guess... because of the characterization along with the fast pacing). He also sometimes relies on really contrived Dei ex Machina (I'm guessing that's the plural). They're interesting reads, but, besides Ender's Game, have huge flaws.

EDIT:

Oh, and I think an epilogue is OK. I mean, just an end note to tell what happened with the characters after the action of the story. Sometimes it's nice to know what happened to them down the road. Go for it, if you think it's necessary, but if you don't have a reason to, don't.

[Andy]

I actually don't think my new series will need a prologue. There's nothing that can't be conveyed through conversations. No secret race trying to steer the world this time. :(

[Carraka]

I know my next series won't need a prologue. I could write one if I wanted to, but since that would be an afterthought-ish sort of thing, I suppose I'll have to resist the temptation.

Instead, I'll write a prequel!

xP

[Starry]

...Now that I think about it, the first chapter of my story is fairly prologue-shaped. I suppose I could take out the whole flashback thing, turn the chapter into a prologue, and find a new inciting incident sort of thing for the new first chapter which has something more to do with the plot. Hmm, I'll have to consider that.

As you can probably tell, I'm not against prologues, as long as they're done well, there's some reason they aren't just normal chapters, and they aren't just random rants for halfway-through-the-novel-character-foreshadowing or that sort of thing (I'm in the middle of reading Twilight for the entertainment/cultural awareness value, and Stephenie Meyer way abuses the prologue convention).

[Carraka]

Oh, gods. That reminds me of this awful thing Scott Lynch does with his prologue in the second book. Eeeegs. Basically he did the same thing as Meyer, only he copied the climax word-for-word, and it was only a mini-climax, not the climax. And the resolution of that climax turned out to be entirely unsatisfying considering you had technically just read half a book to find out what happens.

Rest of the book was good, though. That was just one example where it was entirely unnecessary to have a prologue. I know he did it to hook the reader, and even if that is a legitimate reason (I'm not sure it is) hookings should not be done by pulling material from later in the book.

[Shaun]

Agreed, Croc. Card isn't perfect, but he does know his stuff, and he learned from other people that know their stuff. So while he isn't always right, I take his word for it that prologues are evil. I never read the Homecoming Series and probably won't now that I know it's just a retelling of the Mormon crap.

Prologues, unfortunately, are never done well. Ever. Never has been a good prologue. If you need a prologue to make your novel make sense, then something is wrong with the story. A good story doesn't need you to go "oh, by the way, forty years before this the evil Monkey Lord beat up another Monkey Lord and that's why there are Monkey Lord hybrid Hippos in Fingleton". There are other ways to make that information known to the reader...you know, like dialogue...or maybe the occasional sentence here or there that gives us a glimpse into things. Good writers do this.

[Andy]

If you need a prologue to make your novel make sense, then something is wrong with the story. A good story doesn't need you to go "oh, by the way, forty years before this the evil Monkey Lord beat up another Monkey Lord and that's why there are Monkey Lord hybrid Hippos in Fingleton". There are other ways to make that information known to the reader...you know, like dialogue...or maybe the occasional sentence here or there that gives us a glimpse into things.
What if there is some information that none of the characters know about for at least two or three books - information that is critical for the reader to understand what is going on, but not quite enough to merit a subplot?

Let's say...some guy with a time machine hates this other guy. And without the other guy knowing how it happens, or that there even was a time machine, he is sent to the future, effectively getting rid of him in the present.

Now, explain how the reader would have known how such a thing happened, without a quick prologue told from the time machine guy's point of view? Without a prologue, it would be an extraordinary event with no explanation - a pretty poor plot device. Perhaps one theme of the story could be how the victim feels like he was a jerk to the guy with the machine, but neither one ever sees the other again.

[Shaun]

But that's just 'telling'. Isn't is much more interesting to actually see it happen? And, again, to take the example of Nikara: You yourself have told me I need the scenes at the beginning of the dull seven years. Carina has told me. Not one person has said 'oh you should just refer to that later'. Every single one has said that currently it's weird to have a seven year transition in an average chapter and a few sentences. So quit being so close-minded. Prologues have limited use, but they do have uses.

Car: I was wondering what that prologue was about. Thing is, because it's his second book I was totally hooked by the card game that followed it. I really didn't need to know one of the plot twists in advance. It's clear to me that Jean is playing part of a game, he'd never betray Locke!

I don't recall there being a seven year transition...I recall the first three chapters of Nikara as being very grounded in the present.

[Shaun]

What if there is some information that none of the characters know about for at least two or three books - information that is critical for the reader to understand what is going on, but not quite enough to merit a subplot?

Let's say...some guy with a time machine hates this other guy. And without the other guy knowing how it happens, or that there even was a time machine, he is sent to the future, effectively getting rid of him in the present.

Now, explain how the reader would have known how such a thing happened, without a quick prologue told from the time machine guy's point of view? Without a prologue, it would be an extraordinary event with no explanation - a pretty poor plot device. Perhaps one theme of the story could be how the victim feels like he was a jerk to the guy with the machine, but neither one ever sees the other again.

If none of your characters know about it, then why should we know about it? The problem with your prologue for Winnower was that it told me everything that was going on right from the start. I don't want to know everything. You can show me these things happening later, have them be a mystery to your characters. A prologue is essentially useless.
In your second example I would ask why we even need to know about the time machine guy? Can't the story be partly about the guy trying to figure out why it is that he got sent into the future? If the time machine guy was so integral to the story, he would be a significant part, but basically what you're saying is the time machineguy should be a prologue as a plot point so the stupid reader doesn't get lost. You don't even need the prologue in that example. You just need to adjust the story.

[Carraka]

I don't remember LLL having a prologue. RSURS is the one that has issues. I'm scanning my shelf now and I can't think of any more bad examples. Um, do some of Robert Jordan's in the later books count? The ones that were hundreds of pages long and included twenty different viewpoint characters?

I don't think even Paolini abused the prologue. I'm a firm believer in bloodshed-in-the-beginning, after all, and he gave us that much.

[Starry]

I don't remember LLL having a prologue. RSURS is the one that has issues. I'm scanning my shelf now and I can't think of any more bad examples. Um, do some of Robert Jordan's in the later books count? The ones that were hundreds of pages long and included twenty different viewpoint characters?

I don't think even Paolini abused the prologue. I'm a firm believer in bloodshed-in-the-beginning, after all, and he gave us that much.

Paolini didn't really abuse the prologue, but it wasn't strictly necessary either because all the information about Shades and Arya and the dragon egg are repeated later anyway.

...I really can't think of any more examples of bad prologues than Twilight, but Twilight has kind of obliterated any memory of any other horrible books in my mind.