Backstory?

[TheNaughtyCraftsman]

What do you do when you start a story, then find out that you are curious about what makes the characters really tick? For example, a couple that has made the jump to unconditional trust and love. Either would be 100% comfortable being tied down and a blindfold. That takes time and effort to develop, and the process to get to that point is just as important. to me anyway, as the later parts.

Typically, the stories that start with the"mundane" character development parts don't seem to do as well or end up with the same hits as the ones that start off with a kick.

 

[Weird Harold]

As a reader or as an author?

 

[Hypoxia]

What do you do when you start a story, then find out that you are curious about what makes the characters really tick?

Start with action and/or dialog, then flashback to the backstory -- not all in one exposition, nope. Mix them up: forestory, backstory, fore and back, as needed. See my Like A Hole In The Head and As Simple As Black And White? and Dexterous Dexter for variants of the technique. In BLACK & WHITE the backstory comes near the end, not the beginning. HOLE-HEAD starts at the end and circles back. DEXTER has bits of backstory scattered throughout.

 

[TheNaughtyCraftsman]

Sorry...hit the wrong button.

 

[TheNaughtyCraftsman]

Start with action and/or dialog, then flashback to the backstory -- not all in one exposition, nope. Mix them up: forestory, backstory, fore and back, as needed. See my Like A Hole In The Head and As Simple As Black And White? and Dexterous Dexter for variants of the technique. In BLACK & WHITE the backstory comes near the end, not the beginning. HOLE-HEAD starts at the end and circles back. DEXTER has bits of backstory scattered throughout.

Thank you. That's what I did and it seemed to irritate a few people. I suppose I have to write it the way the characters decide to tell it, and let people like it or not.

One other question. If the story decides to take a sharp turn and takes off in a totally different direction, do you go with it or do you try to force it back to the original thought?

 

[TheNaughtyCraftsman]

As a reader or as an author?

Author. Seems that some people hate the background, but I can't seem to write anything unless I know who I'm writing about.

 

[JKendallDane]

Thank you. That's what I did and it seemed to irritate a few people. I suppose I have to write it the way the characters decide to tell it, and let people like it or not.

One other question. If the story decides to take a sharp turn and takes off in a totally different direction, do you go with it or do you try to force it back to the original thought?

I learned to never fight with characters for control. They are the ones in charge of the story.

"Author" is a fancy word for "poorly paid secretary" that is stuck with organizing their thoughts!

 

[NaokoSmith]

Maybe you could write the backstory as a separate story or chapter - a prequel.

I have minor characters whose lives started to take up too much room in my novels. One day I had the idea to take them out and let them have a party in their own stories, and now I have a string of novellas to accompany the novels.

 

[RejectReality]

There's nothing wrong with knowing where people come from -- even if it never ends up in the story. That's what happens with most of mine. The bits I feel are necessary end up in the story. Others may emerge later. Sometimes it ends up in prequels and history stories.

Even in my short stroke pieces, there are a lot of details that never end up on paper. It's part of what keeps my production low, but it's part of my creative process, and there's no getting around it.

I have to know who I'm writing about.

 

[StrangeLife]

Author. Seems that some people hate the background, but I can't seem to write anything unless I know who I'm writing about.

Not background in general, but some readers - yours truly included - dislike "superfluous" backstories.

An example you see often here on Lit is the "how I met my wife back in high school"-flashback. Some writers put one in all their stories whether or not it has any relevance for the plot or the characters.

 

[lovecraft68]

What do you do when you start a story, then find out that you are curious about what makes the characters really tick? For example, a couple that has made the jump to unconditional trust and love. Either would be 100% comfortable being tied down and a blindfold. That takes time and effort to develop, and the process to get to that point is just as important. to me anyway, as the later parts.

Typically, the stories that start with the"mundane" character development parts don't seem to do as well or end up with the same hits as the ones that start off with a kick.

All my stories have back story. IMO stories where you know nothing of the characters other than them fucking is a stroke story, getting to know their motivations makes is more of a actual story.

 

[lovecraft68]

Thank you. That's what I did and it seemed to irritate a few people. I suppose I have to write it the way the characters decide to tell it, and let people like it or not.

One other question. If the story decides to take a sharp turn and takes off in a totally different direction, do you go with it or do you try to force it back to the original thought?

I let the story take me where ever it wants to go. I do not fight the muse. She gets pretty bitchy, pretty quickly.

When its done if you think it got out of control you can always edit, but I never interrupt the flow.

 

[lovecraft68]

Author. Seems that some people hate the background, but I can't seem to write anything unless I know who I'm writing about.

There is back ground and.....telling war and peace so there is a fine line.

In my experience the background(providing it is within reason) haters are the people looking for a get off story.

But the best thing about lit is there is an audience for everything and every style so keep writing your way and your fans will find you

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I like how Philip Kerr handles backstory. Every eruption of backstory goes in a distinct chapter after the mandatory harp prelude.

 

[Serafina1210]

Not background in general, but some readers - yours truly included - dislike "superfluous" backstories.

An example you see often here on Lit is the "how I met my wife back in high school"-flashback. Some writers put one in all their stories whether or not it has any relevance for the plot or the characters.

A backstory can be made to look superfluous, even if it's essential to understanding the characters, if the storytelling is clunky. If your narrative comes to a screeching halt while you do the backstory, it had better be so good it grabs the readers by the throat and shakes them.

I tend to be impatient about backstory, which leaks out slowly: a clause here, a sentence there.

 

[Hypoxia]

One other question. If the story decides to take a sharp turn and takes off in a totally different direction, do you go with it or do you try to force it back to the original thought?

Depends. I take different approaches. With many stories, I build the environment and characters, and let them run. A story I'd tried (and failed) for YEARS to fit into a template became BRIDE OF KONG when I set the characters loose. Some tales are essentially road-trip narratives, and those are pretty easy: narrator goes somewhere and does something; they go elsewhere and do something else; repeat forever. Those are my DEXTER and RON series, and some of the A TASTE OF INCEST episodes.

But with other stories, I (the Author) have a fair idea of plot points, and I (the Author) at least make the characters hit those points. Examples: JENNY BE FAIR and RIGHT UNDER HIS EYES. If a character wants to make a side trip but rejoins the parade, that's fine with me. Some of those side trips can be... disconcerting. I never expected Randy's sister to rape him in THE BOOK OF RUTH. And now the characters in RUTH are waiting for me (the Author) to decide on their next plot points. They're getting impatient, too.

Yes, sometimes the Author seems like not much more than a transcription secretary. Ah, but the Author is also the Editor. And the Editor gets to cut lines, blue-pencil superfluous excursions, change continuity, etc. The Author/Editor at least maintains an illusion of control.

 

[Weird Harold]

There's nothing wrong with knowing where people come from -- even if it never ends up in the story. That's what happens with most of mine. The bits I feel are necessary end up in the story. Others may emerge later. Sometimes it ends up in prequels and history stories.

Even in my short stroke pieces, there are a lot of details that never end up on paper. It's part of what keeps my production low, but it's part of my creative process, and there's no getting around it.

I have to know who I'm writing about.

Author. Seems that some people hate the background, but I can't seem to write anything unless I know who I'm writing about.

RR made the most important point about backstory: An author needs to know who he's writing about but he doesn't need to tell the readers anything and he doesn't need to tell-all all at once.

Every story is different and how you present any backstory is part of how they're different.

In your example...

For example, a couple that has made the jump to unconditional trust and love. Either would be 100% comfortable being tied down and a blindfold.

... the Author needs to know why they trust unconditionally and how solid that trust is, but as a reader, I'm satisfied to know that the Trust exists without needing to know why it exists. Depending on the situation, I might not even need to know that much because knowing it might spoil the suspense the story needs.

A lot depends on the mood the author wants to set for the story. The amount of backstory can be the difference between a suspenseful thriller and a playful evening -- if the reader knows whoever is Top isn't going to cause any real injury and the bottom trusts they won't, there's no suspense. If the author withholds that information, the same events described the same way can become dark and suspenseful.

 

[JKendallDane]

All my stories have back story. IMO stories where you know nothing of the characters other than them fucking is a stroke story, getting to know their motivations makes is more of a actual story.

I think even a stroker needs enough back story to help put you in the mood. I can't get into reading something that doesn't make at least a minimal attempt at introducing me to the characters beyond hair color and body part sizes.

Like LC, all of my stories (strokers and series) have some back story included. Sometimes it's to ease the reader into the storyline, and sometimes because it is integral to the overall plot even if that isn't blatantly apparent until the final paragraphs.

 

[TheNaughtyCraftsman]

Thank you

To all that took a second to answer, thank you. It seems that there are very few places that you can go to get constructive advice about writing, even without throwing the erotica genre into the mix.

 

[TheNaughtyCraftsman]

Depends. I take different approaches. With many stories, I build the environment and characters, and let them run. A story I'd tried (and failed) for YEARS to fit into a template became BRIDE OF KONG when I set the characters loose. Some tales are essentially road-trip narratives, and those are pretty easy: narrator goes somewhere and does something; they go elsewhere and do something else; repeat forever. Those are my DEXTER and RON series, and some of the A TASTE OF INCEST episodes.

But with other stories, I (the Author) have a fair idea of plot points, and I (the Author) at least make the characters hit those points. Examples: JENNY BE FAIR and RIGHT UNDER HIS EYES. If a character wants to make a side trip but rejoins the parade, that's fine with me. Some of those side trips can be... disconcerting. I never expected Randy's sister to rape him in THE BOOK OF RUTH. And now the characters in RUTH are waiting for me (the Author) to decide on their next plot points. They're getting impatient, too.

Yes, sometimes the Author seems like not much more than a transcription secretary. Ah, but the Author is also the Editor. And the Editor gets to cut lines, blue-pencil superfluous excursions, change continuity, etc. The Author/Editor at least maintains an illusion of control.

The last part of your comment really addresses what I was saying about forcing the flow. I use writing as a virtual reality to get away from the pain from failed back surgery, and it seems like I just write what the movie in my head projects through the dust between my ears. The challenge is finding someone that will edit the pieces with a velvet lined chainsaw.

 

[MSTarot]

There are as many types of erotic stories and story styles as there are erotic writers. Some need the added back story to carry the emotional weight of the characters.

To give the reader a reason to care why these two people are hanging from chandeliers.

There are some very good stories out there that have almost none. You meet the characters, they have some sexy, erotic, back and forth banter and they end up in bed. The rest of the page is an anatomy lesson.

It can be a hot story. But... the moment the orgasm is over (your's not their's) you are ready to put the story down and go do something else.

It's the switch.

That moment when you (the reader) are sated and the interest dies. Now at that moment to hang on to your reader you have to have more than a vivid description of just who can do what with a duck, a rubber hose, and two gallons of lube.

It's at that point that the character development that you built up in that back story comes into play. To keep the reader interested till the next "hot" scene.


I hate breaking down a story into a description like that.

Every part of the story should be wove together. Hook, intro scene, character expo, build up, sex scenes, after sex scenes, build up again. All of these are just simply labels being put on sections of what is not bits and pieces. The story must hold your reader from page one sentence one all the way to the end.

When they finish reading they should be leaving a comment for a sequel. Because they were not done wanting to read about those characters.

MST

 

[RoyceConnors]

Sometimes a bit of a prelude of backstory and lead it into the story works, but it has to fit that type of story and style to play out right.

I like to use backstory sporadically when transitions and thoughts occur in a character. Let the reader see the transformation themselves and make what they want out of it. I give the reader as much as they need to know a character's inner workings near the start and start changing them throughout slowly, or have something drastic and in your face happen to change everything. Life is like that.

 

[JKendallDane]

That moment when you (the reader) are sated and the interest dies. Now at that moment to hang on to your reader you have to have more than a vivid description of just who can do what with a duck, a rubber hose, and two gallons of lube.

I'll bet you throw some of THE most interesting parties in your town!

 

[3113]

Pretty much what everyone else said. We writers love our characters and want to know their stories and want to tell their stories, often in long-assed detail. But you have to be careful or you'll come across like a parent gushing about their kid, relating every major event from the moment the kid let out his first cry. We know you love your child, but we're only interested in knowing what happened to him this week. Not what's happened to him in the six years since he was born.

Which is the whole trick. You write all this stuff down, and then you put it away for later. AFTER audiences have fallen in love with your characters and want to know more.

Harry Potter did a very good job of this. You didn't know much of Harry Potter's parents—or Ron's or anyone's for that matter in the first couple of books. The author waited till fans of these characters were begging to know more, then started doling out all this background, book by book.

Give readers what they need for this story only. Then hand out the rest in the next story and the next.

 

[StrangeLife]

Harry Potter did a very good job of this. You didn't know much of Harry Potter's parents—or Ron's or anyone's for that matter in the first couple of books. The author waited till fans of these characters were begging to know more, then started doling out all this background, book by book.

Give readers what they need for this story only. Then hand out the rest in the next story and the next.

I will add to this excellent advice, that pretty much all the background information we got in Harry Potter was necessary for the story or for understanding the motives of one of the major players. Even as detailed as Rowling was, she never wasted the readers time with irrelevant filler material. For instance we know nothing about the background of Minerva MacGonagall or Dolores Umbridge because their pasts have no influence on the story, while the youth of Harrys parent's is covered pretty well.

So despite using 4000 pages, Rowling is actually a good example of an author who keeps her focus all the way through the story.