Writers: What do you do when you have a hero or heroine with a bazillion years of relevant backstory that must be brought to bear against the present-day romance?
Readers: What method of backstory development do you prefer?
Do you like the flashback? The dropped comment and the tearful, wrenching confession of what those dropped comments really meant? The prologue that tries to tie up the whole mess? What’s your favorite method of greeting the past when looking at the present and the future of a character? We want to know!
Well, I hate long expositions, so my preference to have the character drop bits and pieces as the information is relevant. this tends to require a really good writer who is willing to take the time to craft their story. I dislike flashbacks; I find they interrupt the flow of the main story. (an exception is Suz Brockmann’s interweaving of a past and present story line in books like Unsung Hero). I’d far rather have a prolog than a flashback.
Off the top of my head, as Candy and I were discussing this, I brought up Brockmann as an example of a writer who is very, very strong in the flashback-interweaving department. She’s masterful at it, in fact, in various examples I’ve read. But then, is that because we are conditioned to expect backstory flashbacks in military genre films, books, and television shows?
Not so keen on prologues myself. The trouble is that they start you off reading a different story from the one you’re actually going to settle down with.
I don’t have a problem with the odd bit of exposition, but then I am writing (and much of the time reading) historicals where I think that there is on average a bit more exposition, as you can’t always expect the reader to know what was going on in the World twenty years before the events in your tale (“I don’t need to say what happened to her parents during the French Revolution, I can express all that through the cut of her ballgown…”)
Fully-fledged flashbacks are a bit distracting: they risk taking the reader away from the story just as they were getting gripped by it.
I try to expose a few salient facts early on, and then develop what those facts mean for the character through comment, reaction, whatever.
I’d far rather have a prolog than a flashback.
What happens when the backstory is way, way, wayyyy too big and detailed and important to fit into a prologue?
Interesting point about the extensive use of flashbacks in military movies and books, Sarah. I think part of the reason why they’re used so much is because the war is experience is so vivid and traumatic that authors often feel that a narrative summary provides insufficient detail.
(Edited to clear up crack whorish typos.)
I don’t have a problem with the odd bit of exposition, but then I am writing (and much of the time reading) historicals where I think that there is on average a bit more exposition, as you can’t always expect the reader to know what was going on in the World twenty years before the events in your tale
Nora Roberts, at least as JD Robb, is brilliant at world-building through bits and pieces of information scattered through, rather than long expositions. So is Lois McMaster Bujold. (I *think* this is called inclueing).
What happens when the backstory is way, way, wayyyy too big and detailed and important to fit into a prologue?
Then it’s probably way too big and detailed for flashbacks which would interrupt the flow of the main story, wouldn’t you think? except, of course, if what you really have is two parallel stories (one past, one present) that interweave and come together at some point.
One way this could be handled if it’s that big a backstory would be two interlocked novellas (again, I use Roberts as an example), Remember When: the back-story is so big and involved that it became the first half of the book. I thought that was well-handled.
Love the flashback WHEN IT’S DONE WELL…I’m reading along and all of the sudden WHAM! (no, not George Michael and that other guy, y’all).
The flashback draws attention. My brain is like, “Whoa. Whaaaa? Huh? What’s happening here?” Then the light dawns…
Well, usually it does. Then we have the flipside of that coin where the writer totally loses me.
So, I am generally liking the flashbacks, but not if they suck.
It’s all in the pacing, dahling.
Interestingly (though I admit the “interest” may apply to me only), I’m reading The Good Soldier right now—or re-reading is the better way to put it. This is one of the best-constructed stories I’ve ever read from the perspective of going back and forth in time as well as changing points of view for the characters. In fact, I started re-reading it the day after I finished it the first time despite some negative feelings about the characters, which, I think, is a key sign of something well-written: you can’t wait to start it all over again, hoping to catch more “clues” on the next go ‘round. This story bounces back and forth in time and is masterfully done and I believe the story wouldn’t feel quite so profound if the story were told in a straight line.
Now, as to preference, I don’t have one per se – though I did notice while reading Time and Again recently that that was a story that could have used the flashback device since it was told from the first person point of view and the opening to the story could have easily been condensed and told at least partially as a flashback. I think it helps a great deal in pulling in the reader when there’s a small-to-moderate amount of back story if the author jumps in to a point where there’s some action, then slows it down a bit by filling in back story, then jumps forward again to the action.
For me the key is pacing: does it help or hinder the pacing of the story to dole out important facts over time or throw them at the reader in a lump up front. If there’s a lot of back story and it’s pretty much all key and important to the current story, in a way that doesn’t seem like a “back story” situation – it calls for the sequel treatment, just as someone else already noted here. Sometimes I like the a-ha! feeling when a piece of key information that puts what I’ve already read into a new light comes in medias res (what comes to mind for me here as an example is learning of how Hannah’s father died in The English Patient – a key piece of information that helps understand her motivations as a character that comes late in the story and thus puts what you know about her in a different light). If poorly done, though, this late-to-the-party info dump bugs the hell out of me and I think, “Why the fuck did you wait until now to tell me that – and if you waited this long was it all that important?!”
Though I’ve given examples here of books outside the romance genre (mostly because, for the life of me, the only “romance” books coming to mind at present are the Outlander stories), I think the same thing holds true for me in romances, too.
My final verdict is that it all depends: it depends on the story, it depends on how skillfully the author pulls off whatever route s/he chooses, it depends on if the manner that important off-stage facts was revealed seemed natural or detracted from the story as a whole. (e.g. Sometimes things like overheard conversations as a method for getting across data just feels so trite, but sometimes it absolutely fits the story, the nature of the characters, etc. and I gobble it up without protest.)
WHAM! (no, not George Michael and that other guy, y’all).
Ok, despite what you say, I still have “Wham, bam, I am a man – job or no job you can’t tell me that I’m not”
Help me!
What happens when the backstory is way, way, wayyyy too big and detailed and important to fit into a prologue?
Then you’re writing the wrong novel!
I write historical stuff with massive backdrops (first the Spanish Civil War, now the Boxer Rebellion) which aren’t part of ‘common knowledge’ (unlike, say, WW2). I tend to read way more background than I need, often going back up to 40 years earlier so I can understand why the situations come about. But all I put in the novels is what is relevant to the characters. That’s the macro level and is normally supplied via expositionary dialogue or internal monologue. To use an example form the classic, Austen never clarifies that her male characters are involved in the Napoleonic wars. Partially because she was writing at the time and therefore had no need to expand but partially because it isn’t relevant to her story.
With character backstories – the micro level – I use more flashback but they are fleeting. Like when a smell suddenly transports you to your grandmother’s house and you can taste the cake and hear the hum of heavy insects in the summer garden but after millisecond you’re back in the now.
I do like embedded narratives like Darcy’s letter in Pride and Prejudice but that’s because I like novels which use narrative voices and plays on perception. As fiveandfour says, sometimes the late reveal of a detail really pulls off a great switch in how you see things and works to draw you on further.
Whatever works for the story at hand. Seriously. Some stories work well with a Prologue (The Firebrand, by Susan Wiggs which I just finished, frex). Some don’t need it and have it anyway. Some stories can do with in-cluing scattered throughout, but some stories (or authors) can’t because the info is too much and so the reader is left going WTF? which is never good. Occasional, short flashbacks are good when they are CLEARLY marked as such and do not detract from the story.
So, it isn’t so much how do I like to get my background info as to how well the writer handles it and how much it adds to the story.
I happen to like a well done flashback, but some end up being so not well done that they do end up pulling the reader out of the story. Prologues are good for basic backstory, but if there is so much backstory that needs to be included perhaps writing bits and pieces of this as needed throughout, and there is so much where that even that won’t work then perhaps you are trying to write the wrong story, and you should be writing the backstory as the real story.
Just last night, I saw Closer, and they had many flashbacks. The movie kept jumping forward and backwards, but it somehow worked. For me it did anyway. This is not the norm though. Too many flashbacks can lose someone reading or watching in the case of a movie.
I agree with those who said it depends on the story. Some benefit from a prologue, some from a flashback, most from interweaving the backstory into the current action.
What you want to avoid most is the infodump. You have to gauge what your reader may already know, and figure out what she doesn’t know but needs to know. It’s not easy to get just the right mix, but the examples pointed out here are good ones and worth studying.
These are really interesting responses, because I’m struggling with this right now. I have two characters with nearly 1000 years of history between them—how to weave it in best? I originally started with a prologue, but I’m realizing there is much more here than just prologue/chapter length. So to weave it in with flashbacks? Chapter headings? It’s a difficult decision, but one that I think might a post-first draft decision. I’ll write the prologue-ish scenes, get them established, see how it fits in with the rest, and then maybe rewrite and work them into the story a different way.
I like prologues, for the most part—I don’t like prologues if it is just the villain steepling his fingers and talking about how evil he’s going to be. They must be relevant to the character arc to work for me. For example, Lord of Scoundrels—had we not seen his childhood in a prologue, I’m not sure his current character would have been as palatable—nor would I have had the patience to put up with him/understand him.
One interesting ‘prologue’ I read last year was in Lisa Cach’s DREAM OF ME—instead of a prologue, there was a very short “Part One”. It set up the action in the main part of the story, but was integral to the plot as a whole, and character motivations (I loved this book, btw—breaking up the story that way totally worked for me). I have a feeling that perhaps it wasn’t intended to be that long, but during the writing the long intro became necessary so it was promoted from Prologue to Part One. I might be wrong, though, and it was always Part One.
Uh, sorry for babbling.
“One interesting ‘prologue’ I read last year was in Lisa Cach’s DREAM OF ME—instead of a prologue, there was a very short “Part Oneâ€. It set up the action in the main part of the story, but was integral to the plot as a whole, and character motivations (I loved this book, btw—breaking up the story that way totally worked for me).”
I agree, and what I thought was most interesting about it was that the pacing really worked for this part of the book. I think overall there were some pacing problems with the story, but in general it was a provocative and fascinating read (Cach is clearly trying to do some different things, and I loved the theme of sexual healing), with a heroine consciously resisting her sex-as-shameful training and a very interesting demon-hero.
As for Brockmann, am I the only one who gets annoyed when she launches into back story during intimate scenes? It always breaks the mood for me, and frankly I just don’t get it.
As for incorporating backstory, my first prize goes to the letters at the beginning of Kinsale’s My Sweet Folly. Although I think that novel has plotting problems later on, I adore those letters, think they’re among the best prose Kinsale has produced, and feel they convey so much in so few words. In those letters, Kinsale is able to establish Folie and Robert’s characters, stake out the backstory, and forge the emotional link between the romantic leads. Those first few pages are among my favorites in all of Romance.
I prefer when the back story is initially hinted at, and then the flashback occurs. I find when there is a heavily detailed prologue the characters lose some of their mystique, because in the back of my mind I already have TMI and am trying to fit all the pieces together.
Sometimes the interweaving of the back story is too drawn out, as it was in Kay Hooper’s “Hunting Fear” with Lucas and the mysterious references to “Bryan”. There were only a limited number of people Bryan could have been and the reason why his memory would be traumatic was very obvious.
I prefer a short prologue with stuff you just have to know, and then bits and pieces of info dropped throughout the story.
I hate flashbacks.
Most of it’s good for me, as long as it’s done well.
If I were pressed, I’d probably prefer flashbacks to prologue. I find the scattered references hinting at a bigger exposition to follow are usually a good way to hook me. Certainly if the writer doesn’t deliver reasonably soon, I’m swearing at them, screaming, “What HAPPENENED!”
I rather like stories with a lot of backstory.
Obviously, I have a suspense-activated stutter. That was supposed to be Happened not Happenened.
Odd.
One interesting ‘prologue’ I read last year was in Lisa Cach’s DREAM OF ME—instead of a prologue, there was a very short “Part Oneâ€. It set up the action in the main part of the story, but was integral to the plot as a whole, and character motivations (I loved this book, btw—breaking up the story that way totally worked for me).
That sounds like a smart way to do it: readers know when something is labelled in “parts” that they may be events years apart etc. whereas I expect a prologue to be a snappy introduction to the themes and ideas of the main story.
Reading these comments, I guess what I hate most is infodump, which seems to me too often what flashbacks are used for.
If there are too many flashbacks, I get confused about what’s happening to who when and in what sequence.
one example of well-done flashbacks is The Egyptologist – one of the most brilliantly written and unpleasant books I’ve read in the last several years.
I don’t like prologues full of action that occurs in the middle of the story because then I’m rushing through the book to get to that point, and it feels as if everything up to that point is backstory.
I like pieces dropped throughout the story that move it along.
I love how Kathleen Gilles Seidel’s backstory moments always paint a picture of how the character came to be and why they act the way they do. It’s always a pleasant moment and done very well.
I have two characters with nearly 1000 years of history between them—how to weave it in best?
My instinctual response to this question was flashbacks – this seems to be a situation crying out for flashbacks, plus potentially changing points of view between characters.
I was thinking about this question some more last night – after an unrelated experience in real life yesterday made me realize how, in reality, we sometimes forget things about other people, but then they’ll do some little thing and it’s something that has either always pleased you or bugged the hell out of you, but yet somehow since they do it rarely enough you manage to forget it in-between-times, but *boom* they do it again and there you have memory after memory flooding in so that in the present moment you either go “ahhh” or “gahhh” in reaction.
The thing is, though, if this is a story where that thing or those things that have come up over time are important threads in the fabric of the relationship, they are important things that help explain the how and why they interact the way they do, it seems impossible to me that all of these nuances and facts can be told up front and they would have the same meaning to the reader than if they were interspersed throughout the story, adding spice and depth as it goes.
OK, now that I’ve written some sentences here that can help me win the Henry James copycat writer of the year award, I’ll leave off and let you get back to your regularly scheduled programming.
““Just last night, I saw Closer, and they had many flashbacks. The movie kept jumping forward and backwards, but it somehow worked. For me it did anyway. This is not the norm though.”
I liked Closer’s structure, too, but it was a challenge to follow. I think that movie can be compared to more “literary” novels as compared to straight genre novels.
I am reading Crimson City now, and it had kind of a massive, up front infodump. At the time of reading, I resented it. But now that I’m in the story, I am rather grateful that I know what’s what, and can enjoy the action.
Personnally, I think it has to do with the story itself and, of course, the writer’s skill. If the story starts in the thick of things, like a war or some big crisis, than a prologue is better.
On the other hand, a good flashback can be just as effective to give backstory. I just re-read Karen Ranney’s “So In Love”, the final Highland Lords book. The hero and heroine fell and love at 17 and were separated. The book is set 10 years later. How Ranney showed us the past love story is, for exemple, when one of the protagonists would do or say something and the other would remember something from that first love. Wonderfully done.
A good prologue, still in the “then and now” theme, is the first chapter of Linda Howard’s “After The Night”. Or Rachel Gibson’s “Simply Irresistible”. Both could be termed long but we needed, IMO, the whole story to get the characters baggage for the “now” part. (does that make sense? My mental translator is in slow mo, waiting for lunch)
Prologues are o.k., but I prefer the bits and pieces (as long as it’s not the same bit and piece over and over again because the author is just dragging shit out).
Hate. Flashbacks. Hate them.