I know it's always hard to discuss certain aspects of writing, devices, techniques etc without referring to actual text, but anyway . . .

I've got a prologue at the beg of my novel (v short, about 130 words), which is in the present tense (and italics). About 1/4 - 1/3 of the way through the book, there's a gap of about 18 months (the main story is chronological), and what happens in the prologue comes in that 18 month gap (between ch 11 and 12). I've just a written a follow-on to the prol. (short, 350 words, present tense, italics - ie same style as the prologue), to go between ch 11 and 12, which take place minutes after the end of the prologue. For various reasons, I'd like to keep it in this style (don't know how it 'reads' yet, though, in the context of the whole thing, so need to look at that) - but just wondering if that sounds like it could work, whether it's 'acceptable' as a device, or whether it sounds completely naff.

Personally, I really like stories where the epilogue follows on from, or links in some way to the prologue - and this is similar except that the 'epilogue' doesn't come at the end, but earlier in the story. (so, er, obviously, it's not an epilogue!!)

px

There was a little discussion about the +/- of prologues in the Children's forum.

My personal opinion is that it should go in between chapters 11 & 12 unless written in a style completely different from the rest of the novel - for my reasons you'll have to check out the thread in Childrens and compare them against your style of prologue.


- NaomiM

Thanks, Naomi - I'll have a look in the CF.

Actually, i meant I'm thinking of having the prologue, plus this prologue-y style extract between 11 and 12.
(if that makes sense??),

but I'll look at the discussion in cf,
pxx

I think it could work if you set the book out as two parts; then you could have the prologue for part one, and the second for part two.

Just a thought.

Nik

Thanks, Nik,

Actually the book pretty much divides into 3 parts, and this would be at the beg of the 2nd part.

px

3 parts?! Ok, now I'm really confused

Can you post the prologue, & a few paragraphs from chap's 11/12 for comparison?
I have to admit I have a terrible prejudice when it comes to prologues, especially where it's a snippet from the middle of the book. Partly because you are asking the reader to remember something out of context until they get to the relevant part of the book. And, partly, if done badly, it can send the reader off in the wrong direction resulting in a clash of gears when they hit Chapter 1. But that is very much a generalisation and some prologues work regardless.
I invariably skip them.

- NaomiM

I see what Naomi's saying - there are plenty of terrible examples out there. BUT that's only when they don't work. Yours, Poppy, sounds short and concice, so I'd say if you feel they work leave 'em in - and have one at the beginning of each part. Probably.

There's nothing wrong with a taster at the beginning of something. As long as it's done well.

Nik

I've been thinking about it since you WWmailed me, Poppy, and I can also see that putting it in where it 'fits' chronologically is a way of anchoring the prologue into the rest of the book - obliquely indicating that we've got to 'where the story started'.

I also think there can't be any 'rules' about prologues and epilogues and things of that style coming only at the beginning or the end. If they have the effect you want, you can put them wherever you flipping well want.

(When I read it, though, I didn't immediately realise - no doubt being dense - that it was taking place immediately after the scene in the prologue. Could you perhaps tie it in with a more obvious reminder/link, for the stupid reader (i.e. me)? Actually, now I know, I can see there are lots of clever resonances between the two (her counting the time going by in the prologue, him glancing at the clock in this piece...) - but maybe something more 'obvious'. As Emma always says, you sometimes have to make things a teeny bit obvious-seeming to yourself in order for others to pick up the cue. I'm thick, though, 'cos, I know both pieces mention Anna being out, etc. But I suppsoe I thought it happened like this frequently for years, so didn't pick up there was meant to be such a direct temporal link.)

Rosy x

Thanks for the thoughts, everyone!

I know what you mean about 'rules', Rosy - I agree, but I just get a bit scared about doing things that might not work and it looking espeically naff!!

Good point about making the link more obvious (yes, i remember what Emma said about having to be more obvious than you think, or else no-one'll pick it up!!). But also, in a way, the direct link's not crucial, because it's also about the 'general', ie that this was a regualr thing.

Eek, gotta go to work!!!!
Thanks for your responses everyone!!
pxxx