Front-story action vs Back-story info dumps

[Rumple Foreskin]

Just passing along these thoughts about opening scenes, FYI.

Rumple Foreskin

==

Over on the Erotic Romance Writers Forum, ERWF, a new writer said that, to him, there seemed to be a lot of early info dumps in erotic romance ebooks and asked if that was the norm for the genre.

Vincent Diamond, who has multi-publication credits, posted this reply:

One of the good things I got out of a writer's workshop I took last summer with litfic goddess Amy Bloom was this: your readers don't really care about backstory. What they want is an interesting, compelling front story happening right now with vivid details and conflict. And she's right.

As an editor, I really push the authors I work with to *not* frontload the story with back story. Give me characters on a page I can care about, give me some conflict and intrigue, and give me some action or at least something interesting happening. Do NOT give me characters sitting on a sofa remembering the history of their people or about their prior relationships or blah blah blah boringness fishcakes.

When I'm reading submissions for publishers, it's numbing to read first chapter after first chapter that Info Dumps. I just want to shake the author and say, "Stop it!". Give me a scene, dammit.

Start with a scene, something happening in real time then, if you must, fill in some background. But oh dear dog, don't start with background.

It'll kill ya on the slush pile, I promise.

 

[sunandshadow]

if those ebooks were science fiction or fantasy, I would expect them to have more infodumps. Some things you just have to explain before you can get to the sex, like what the aliens look like, that everyone in this world is a hermaphrodite, only the vaginal juices of virgins can power starship shields, etc.

 

[Softouch911]

Most everything can be explained as part of the action, in nearly every form ... if it's kept simple enough. And if it really needs lengthy exposition build a "need to know basis" for it ... action that creates a reader who is hungry for the information.

Exposition is one of the casualties of Ti-Vo and film in general. People pick up the book in a store, read (perhaps) a two graf blurb on the jacket, then flip to the first graf of the story, or maybe two or three .... if they ain't into the story by then, they keep on looking.

The way to get in back story, imo, is not to develop lengthy exposition but to develop conflict and suspense which requires exposition. Sexual tensiion, e.g.

"My God this guy is hot for that girl. What makes her so special?"

And yes, of course there are exceptions. Even the commandments have exceptions for most of us.

Respectfully, ST

 

[Penelope Street]

... your readers don't really care about backstory.

So true. At least for me as a reader, but I confess to having fallen for the allure of backstory a few times as a writer- and not that long ago. *sigh*

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

So true. At least for me as a reader, but I confess to having fallen for the allure of backstory a few times as a writer- and not that long ago. *sigh*

I feel your pain. In fact, I'm polishing a story now that opens with more backstory than I like, but I can't figure out how to avoid it w/o a total rewrite. Maybe I should post it here when things slow down and beg for some SDC sage wisdom, counsel and advice.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[J.Q. Hack]

Back-story info dumps

I believe back story is important for the development of a story. However, the term back story tells me it's something that is only tangentially related to the story at hand. If the back story is so important why isn't it the main story then?

If an author is going to work in back story it should be worked in gradually and not to early. As readers we need to first develop a relationship with the main characters and care what the outcome of the story is. If we don't establish that connection then all the back story and how it supplements the current story at hand won't be worth a damn.

Just my two cents.

J.Q.

 

[ms.read]

Hmm....

 

[Carnevil9]

I agree; readers don't want a backstory in the beginning, if at all. Just like you don't want a first date to tell you her complete sexual history over your first dinner together! First let's get to know each other in the moment and enjoy the air of mystery; the essential details can come later.......Carney

 

[wanderwonder]

A delightful excerpt from the first page of a book I almost read recently—

Harold turned to his friend. "You know that my family is one of the most prosperous in the land, and that my father is renowned for his good judgement and his fair treatment of his vassals. There are many men who aspire to achieve his depth of character, though they have more years than my father and more experience in their positions. You know that my father was made a baron at an early age, before most men are even noticed by His Majesty, and that my brother, Wiliiam, will be the first of our line to inherit the title," he said.

Charles nodded. "Yes, and I know that you as the second son will be expected to join His Majesty's army when you come of age."​

Infodump in dialogue form. This pattern continued until the two characters had explained the entire family history of Character One and what the conflict of the story was to be. I groaned in disgust, threw the book across the room, and called two different family members to complain. They asked me why I read horrible books, then told me to go buy Harry Potter books. The librarian shushed me asked me to keep my books in my hands.

All stories worth reading have depth, and that depth is the backstory. I hate, however, being told, and not shown. The main character of a story might have a flashback, sure, but I expect that to be triggered, and to be short. For instance:

"Paul waited for Julie on the couch, his collar suddenly too tight. The plastic covering stuck to his back, reminiscent of his early, unhappy years at his grandparents' home, as were the doilies that covered every available surface. Julie's father glowered at Paul from a puce armchair."​

That gives my imagination a little more to work with. Why did he live with his grandparents? Why did he dislike that time? Now I'm interested in the backstory, and will be looking for clues throughout the rest of the story.

As far as avoiding infodumps, there is a good reason that so many books feature prologues. This is where to find the bulk of the backstory, but it is often disguised as an unresolved conflict between characters, a reoccuring nightmare about a real event (even if I roll my eyes at this one, it still works), or the disappearance/appearance of a key element in the context of history (mostly scifi/fantasy). It's where the story "really begins." Either way, if a backstory is necessary, the reader has to stay hooked the whole time.

I don't really know what I'm talking about, to be honest.

Ww

 

[Softouch911]

An interesting aside on this whole issue is illustrated in Cormac McCarthy's latest book, "The Road." It's a post-apocalyptic story ... think Mad Max, War of the Worlds, etc.

McCarthy loves to write such genre stories (he's gone from one genre to another, at least three times that I've read) and strip the conventions of the genre, getting rid of everything he thinks isn't needed.

In "The Road" he gets rid of back story! So ... we read the novel never knoiwing what caused the apocalypse (nucliear, biological, climatic, etc.) or how the characters came to be where they are now, etc.

The effect is that a story of a man's relationship with his son in truly survival conditions occurs, and it's a wonderful read.

It brings up the question for me if, perhaps, in many novels back story isn't more important to the writer than it is to the audience. Does the audience really need to know, or want to know, all this stuff? It's probably needed by the author to develop character, etc.

An interesting question, and I need to think about lots of this from my own perspective as I go on.

Best wishes,
ST

 

[dr_mabeuse]

A technique I've used and seen used is what I call the House On Fire technique.

When you see a house on fire, you don't run over there and start asking bystanders for a history fo the house and who lives there. You're attracted to the spectacle. You run over and stare at the burning house. And then you start asking questions and as you learn about it you're even more interested.

So in the "House On Fire" technique you open with a chapter laying out a high tension, grabby scene in a compelling, and then, when your reader's hooked, you use your second chapter to explain the context and background while some easy forehground action keeps the story going

Example

Chapter one: A tension filled confrontation between two gunfighter's gangs in a saloon that results in a face off in the street. The gunfighters file out into the street. End

Chapter 2: As they file out we're filled in on the history of the conflict, the war between the farmers and the cattlemen, the habits of each man, whatever. We're already holding our breath; we're interested in the fight, so we naturally want to know who these guys are and what's going on

Chapter 3 - Book

It's actually a very common technique ion romances.

 

[emap]

Actually brings up a question, at least it does to me.

What do you need a backstory for?

No seriously, why does it matter that say, my father is the best salesman in the country when I am screwing my husband? Why does it matter that say I am a white woman with large breasts and clean shaven if all I am doing is screwing men?

See unless there is a point to relating the information, why even bother telling it, most of the time it is better to leave it a mystery.

So for an example of not sharing it, the burning house scenario from a firefighters point of view they want to know who is in the house. They don't care that grandma's prized china is in the cupboard in the dining room they don't need to know that little Steve was concieved on that rug before the fireplace, they just want to know how many people are in the house. After maybe they will discuss the fine china in the dining room, assuming it was not destroyed, heck they may even wonder how much exercise the hot daughters bed has seen of late but otherwise they don't give a rats ass.

Most people, myself included look at the big backstory or trivial detail things and ask why the hell is that there. It is always best to avoid that, so if it is not an integral part of the story don't talk about it or in passing mention like how much artwork there is in this room then later talk about how she beans the rapist with a certain peice.

I have found the best thing to do is establish the scene and move the blank on, especially in erotic and action stories, nobody cares they want the sex or action.

 

[jomar]

Actually brings up a question, at least it does to me.

What do you need a backstory for?

No seriously, why does it matter that say, my father is the best salesman in the country when I am screwing my husband? Why does it matter that say I am a white woman with large breasts and clean shaven if all I am doing is screwing men?

See unless there is a point to relating the information, why even bother telling it, most of the time it is better to leave it a mystery.

So for an example of not sharing it, the burning house scenario from a firefighters point of view they want to know who is in the house. They don't care that grandma's prized china is in the cupboard in the dining room they don't need to know that little Steve was concieved on that rug before the fireplace, they just want to know how many people are in the house. After maybe they will discuss the fine china in the dining room, assuming it was not destroyed, heck they may even wonder how much exercise the hot daughters bed has seen of late but otherwise they don't give a rats ass.

Most people, myself included look at the big backstory or trivial detail things and ask why the hell is that there. It is always best to avoid that, so if it is not an integral part of the story don't talk about it or in passing mention like how much artwork there is in this room then later talk about how she beans the rapist with a certain peice.

I have found the best thing to do is establish the scene and move the blank on, especially in erotic and action stories, nobody cares they want the sex or action.

An interesting view.And in most stroke stories on Lit you're right. However, Dr. M, in another thread, noted that in some genres characters are not at all fleshed out. And part of fleshing them out is backstory. I will say, that in all the action novels I've read in the past few years there is always some backstory. Always. Even in characters written with the broadest of strokes (e.g., Cussler's Dirk Pitt).

If you have an understanding if why someone is like they are, why they act like they do, doesn't it make the story more interesting. The trick is seems to be getting who needs how much and who needs nothing correct.

But those are some very amateur thoughts. I'm a fledgling writer who has no training or background in theory.

 

[emap]

Actually no, you don't need backstory to flesh someone out, so long as you have a distinct person in your mind, assuming your writing the story of course, nobody else needs to know.

That is actually the pitfall of writing a story. YOu don't have to explain why a person reacts to things this way, you just have to know that this one acts this way and this one acts another way.

Take for instance, Star Wars the original three movies are fine and dandy alone, did not need to know the rest of it. The first one shoved you right in the middle of a resistance, you see a woman get captured and send two droids off to contact someone, all you learn about the someone is he is a jedi and knew Luke's father. The how of getting there is not explained, just see the Jawa's take RD-D2 and then sell them both to Luke's Uncle. Did we need to know what the heck a Jawa is? Did we need to know how Darth Vader became Darth Vader? Did we care?

No because the story was compelling, if it is a poorly written story yes we do need to know those things. That is because small things become bigger. If it is poorly written everyone will go now why the heck did that person do that. If it is not poorly written everyone will be swept up and go with the flow and not care.

Well OK not everyone, some want to know exactly why little Johnny is scared of the dark, or why Susan will not do anything but blowjobs and so forth, but those are rather rare individuals.

For the most part all you need are who and what, sometimes a when to make a good story, it just depends on how well you string the words together.

 

[starrkers]

You don't need to include backstory in your story. But you do need it - in your head - to get a character right. You need to know the character's motivations, so you don't trip up and have them contradicting themselves.
How much of that history you include in your story is entirely up to you.

 

[jomar]

Actually no, you don't need backstory to flesh someone out, so long as you have a distinct person in your mind, assuming your writing the story of course, nobody else needs to know.

Take for instance, Star Wars...

For the most part all you need are who and what, sometimes a when to make a good story, it just depends on how well you string the words together.

You don't need to include backstory in your story. But you do need it - in your head - to get a character right. You need to know the character's motivations, so you don't trip up and have them contradicting themselves.
How much of that history you include in your story is entirely up to you.

Okay. That makes sense to me.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Actually brings up a question, at least it does to me.

What do you need a backstory for?

No seriously, why does it matter that say, my father is the best salesman in the country when I am screwing my husband? Why does it matter that say I am a white woman with large breasts and clean shaven if all I am doing is screwing men?

See unless there is a point to relating the information, why even bother telling it, most of the time it is better to leave it a mystery.

So for an example of not sharing it, the burning house scenario from a firefighters point of view they want to know who is in the house. They don't care that grandma's prized china is in the cupboard in the dining room they don't need to know that little Steve was concieved on that rug before the fireplace, they just want to know how many people are in the house. After maybe they will discuss the fine china in the dining room, assuming it was not destroyed, heck they may even wonder how much exercise the hot daughters bed has seen of late but otherwise they don't give a rats ass.

Most people, myself included look at the big backstory or trivial detail things and ask why the hell is that there. It is always best to avoid that, so if it is not an integral part of the story don't talk about it or in passing mention like how much artwork there is in this room then later talk about how she beans the rapist with a certain peice.

I have found the best thing to do is establish the scene and move the blank on, especially in erotic and action stories, nobody cares they want the sex or action.

Backstory usually comprises those elements that can't easily comprises those elements that can't easily be folded into the telling of the main story without sticking out tlike a sore thumb buyt are essential to the understanding of what's going on int the present. They form the context of the story's problem. They're not just scenic details.

Thiink of the crawl at the begiinning the first Star Wars movies. We're thrust into the action as two space ships pursue each other, one obviously big, black, and evil, doing its best to annihilate a smaller underdog who's small, white and innocent. We have no idea of where we are or who's in these ships. Is this Earth versus aliens? Aliens versus aliens? What?

We could probably pretty easily establish that these are rebels fleeing the empire by means of clues foolded into the dialog we hear aboard the two ships. But to establish that the Empire is evil, has maintained a crushing grip on the universe for how many years, is now ruled by an evil Darth Vader or whoever, and is now opposed by a brave rebel alliance of Jedi knights - now you're asking for the dialog to hold a bit more than it's going to be comfortable holding. You're going to have to resort to gimmicks like characters whispering thinking like "I hope the brave Jedi Knights who oppose the evil Darth Vader can rescure us!" and it's going to clunk.

Well, maybe that's a bad exsdample, because you'd still have a good story whether the empire had been around for a thousand years aor ten days...

Here: Ttake my story about a failed artist who fell in with the wrong crowd, started using heroin and became a brilliant tattoo artist, got busted, lost everything, and, when we meet him, is running a crummy shot doing hearts and flowers for $50 a pop. When the story opens, a mysterious girl comes in and wants a full body tattoo to hide what are two funny small scars on her hipo, and he sees in them a chance to redeem himself, to turn her into a masterpiece. The whole story is about him trying to redeem himself by turning her into a work of dazzling art, falling in love with her, being betrayed, redeemed again from an unexpected quarter, &c &c,

But it's essential that you know that at one time he was on top of the world and then lost it all through dope and high living.

I wanted to open with her coming into the shop, and I sure as hell didn't want her saying, "You're the failed artist who got mixed up in the wrong crowd. started using heroin and became a brilliant tattoo artist..." So I used my House On Fire technique:

The shop is closing, this beautiful girl comes in covered head to foot in hat and coat and sunglasses like the invisible man even though it's warm outside because she's obsessed with these scars, and she she says she'll pay him anything to cover her body in a huge tattoo. There's tremendous sexual tension in their meeting: I'll give you this body and you do anything to it you want, only make it beautiful, and there's a disturbing hint in there where he asks here, "You know about me, right?" And she said she does and she still wants him because he's still the best. He says he'll think about it. She leaves. End of chapter.

Chapter 2: He walks into the back of his shop where he keeps his old paintings covered in a tarp and where he keeps on odd collection of pills in a paper cup in a cabinet - codeine, vicodin, xanax - for when the junk-hunger gets too strong (he's clean now) and as he think about her proposition, we learn about his back-story.

By now (hopefully) we're wondering: who is she and what's this dope-fiend going to do to her? Or (I hope because I've painted him sympathetically as a guy really struggling to put his life back together), can he redeem himself though his art or is she some sort of demon going to pull him down through the lure of her body?

Plant the hook in Chapter one. Set it in Chapter 2 with backstory, the context that makes the problem interesting and gives it depth, meaningm, and implkication.

By Chapter 3, we've got a novel on our hands

 

[Softouch911]

Dr. M, I really like describing it as "house on fire." That title does the job and the description explains why my head was nodding even before I read the explanation.

Thanks.

Emap, in an action short story that has purley stereotypical characters ... like in a joke about a farmer's daughter and a salesman ... I'd agree with you. But if the story is longer you're going to want believable characters and I can't think of a book on my shelf (i.e., one of my "keepers") that doesn't have gobs of back story at some point.

Too often the amateur, of course, tries to make the character believable through backstory when it should be used, as others have described, to answer questions the audience both needs and wants to know.

It's not just the crawl at the start of STar Wars, either, is it? Yeah, it's a single movie, but it's also a trilogy (even in the first cycle) and much of the development is caused by the audience's hunger to know more about who DV is, whether Luke and Leia are bro/sis and so on. In other words, the core of the cycle is the desire to know "back story."

Good discussion.
ST

 

[emap]

Going back to Star Wars because well it's the best example of what I am talking about.

There is no explanation of what is happening in the opening scene, you don't know who they are besides attacking the ship. It's not until it cuts to the scene of Vader strangling the captain that we find out rebel ship, empire and vader's name.

I mean think about the first one, what do we know, we know it is called A New Hope, we know there are rebels, there is an empire that is apparently evil and we know there used to be these people called jedi that used a lightsaber and have some pretty neat powers. We also knwo that there is a planet called tattooine, it is very hot and dry there are Jawa's and sand people. We don't know why the Jawa's do what they do, we don't know what they say at any point and sand people are just these ugly people that attack you.

We don't know how a lightsaber works, what the guns actually shoot or well really much of anything. That is why Star Wars trilogy was and is so successful, people want to know but the only person who does know is George Lucas and he did not share much. He let other people share bits and peices but still we do not know the big answers, liek what a lightsaber is, what the guns shoot, well OK I haven't seen that one yet besides Chewbacca shoots plasma with his bowcaster.

Serious look it up, Star Wars still is more mystery than answer and it is still one of the biggest franchises known to man.

Another one, Lord of the Rings. Seriously, how much do you really know about it? We know that elves live a long time, have magic, we know the oen ring was made by Sauron and makes Bilbo, Frodo and Gollum invisible, there are other powers but they are never mentioned. Gandalf has powers that are largely not seen, Strider can do all sorts of things, but none of them are explained besides his sword to a small degree and that he is long living and stronger than most. Dwarven women have beards, they like axes, hate horses, and can run forever, well so Gimly says.

What else do we know? How much information was given in The Hobbit or The Lord of the Rings? There was alot of general information, but none of it terribly informative, we know tabletop was a fort for a really old empire that collapsed, doesn't say why. We know the dwarves used to live in The Lonely Mountain until a dragon moved in, we know there are giant spiders in the forest they go through, we don't know why. Elves and dwarves hate each other because of a war or lack of a war, never really explained.

Did anybody care? I actually did, but in passing a why did they hate each other, why can Strider do all these things, that part is not really explained until near the end of the first book and never really is explained. Gandalf and the other mages are never explained, dwarves are never explored much at all, elves are, but in a different book.

The biggest trick to drawing people in, suggest something but not explain, show a person doing something, but don't tell why they can. Show conflict, but not why. You don't have to explain something if you can shove it in fast enough. Back to Star Wars for a sec.

Think about the opening scene, what do we know? We know a big grey ship is shooting at a small white ship. Through the music we know the big grey ship is bad, which generally means you root for the small white ship. I remember sitting in the theatre for Star Wars, there was alot of oh no's when the white ship takes damage and is taken into the gey ship. All you got was a big grey ship shooting the white ship and the music. The music was what drew you in, you were rooting for the little guy because the big guy had the dark music. Granted it helped white is seen as good and grey not so much.

Did anybody care why the big ship was shooting the small ship? I know I didn't I just wanted the white ship to get away, which was the whole point. You were drawn in and the rest of the movie could explain or not which mostly didn't and you left the movie going why, so you went to the next and the next.

People want to know how and why, think on the basics of good reporting. What who when why and how, if you skip parts, people are going to be intrigued and want to know more. So if you show what and who, people will continue to read hoping for how and why, whether you show it or not doesn't really matter, you got them planted.

 

[wanderwonder]

You don't need to include backstory in your story. But you do need it - in your head - to get a character right. You need to know the character's motivations, so you don't trip up and have them contradicting themselves.
How much of that history you include in your story is entirely up to you.

I think this is an excellent point. It really comes down to purpose. If your objective is to focus on the here and now, backstory isn't going help. If your story is about Slutty Sandra's deepthroating skills, it might help while you write to remember that Slutty Sandra has a heart of gold and is an intelligent, driven lady, which means her blowjobs are only for the wealthy. Your readers won't give a pair of gnome's panties if she still calls her grandmother twice a week and has master's degree in sociology. However, if you want the readers to consider why and how Sandra became a common prostitute on the streets of Hong Kong when she could have a perfectly "normal" life as a grant writer, you're going to need backstory, and those two expensive phone calls to Grandma Nan might just be important. Perhaps Nan encouraged Sandra to travel the world before settling down, but Sandra ran out of money when she hit the Maldives and lost her passport, and the closest embassy was in Hong Kong and the guy on the cargo ship wouldn't let her stow away without regular nookie, turns out Sandra liked it a lot—now we know why she's whoring herself for horny tourists, but since she cares about her family and friends she calls home and lies about working as an ESL tutor just to give old Nan some peace of mind. Now she has layers. Actions answers who, what, when, and where; backstory answers how and why things are as they are, and if it's important for your readers to know, you have to include that information.

I've personally used both techniques; my shorter stories often include little to no backstory, just enough information so that the reader doesn't feel like the characters are paper dolls. My longer stories feature characters to whom I want readers to relate, and all readers are complex creatures with intricate histories that motivate them to think and behave one way or the other. So, as the stories continue the characters reveal more and more about themselves in order to explain their behavior and thought patterns, hence a need for backstory.

The key, I think, is to only include relevant details. The people we know who tell great stories only include the information needed to keep us feeling like we're in the know, and leave the rest. The bad story-tellers, the kind who can empty a room when they start talking…I teased an old college classmate of mine about not being in the classroom enough to understand what our professor was saying. She responded by spending the ten-minute walk to the dorms yammering about how in first grade she got dehydrated and had to go to the nurse, and then in third grade she had coffee for the first time and nearly jumped through the roof, but her brother liked grape soda, which is caffeine-free, and on and on until I wasn't listening anymore, and finally she ended with, "and that's why I've had to pee so much lately." I wanted to choke her for wasting my time, and your readers will too if your stories read like that.

All things considered (and to return to the original question posed), I don't think it's ever justifiable to explain the entire backstory of all the characters before getting to the real meat of the story. There is no way to describe this technique other than boring.

 

[Guest]

Thank you all for such an incredible discussion.

 

[gauchecritic]

Backstory, to me, is like physical description, I don't want it all dumped in my lap at once and I definitely don't want the equivalent of a mirror scene which is how I view character exposition. I tend to view prologues as author exposition.

Backstory to me usually comes out as a list of things that I'm supposed to know as a reader, but most often the story stands without any reference to backstory.

Someone that uses backstory to great effect and ties almost every single detail of it into the now of the story is Christopher Brookmyre. Many of his novels are virtually two separate stories under one title, one being the backstory for the current one.

My view of backstory is necessity. If there is a requirement for it then as the writer I will deal with it as it occurs for a couple of reasons. One is that it can be used as a breather for the pacing and the other is that as the writer I've just discovered that there really ought to be a reason for the most recent event.

On the other hand I quite enjoy leaving loose ends to the reader's imagination. Writing in an elliptical style, that is leaving out the common knowledge steps, and applying this to back story.

Sometimes it is useful to round out a fastidious person by having them warm the pot before brewing tea. The common knowledge steps of tea brewing can be safely left out.

 

[Tzah]

IMO, it's an increasing (and saddening) trend of creativity being compromised for quick-fix.

A lot of readers *don't* care for it... but I do, and when I'm skimming stories, or even books on a shelf- what makes a character, or what brings the story to "this date" interests me. Now, true- a lot of long-winded and overly-descriptive stuff (that's my personal bad habit- ok, kill me, I grew up reading Jean Auel) is really brain-deadening, but some's good.

A lot of the 'Reading audience' of the erotica genre, IMO, however don't want "story" so much as they want smuttin'. That's ok, too. You have to cater to what your market demands. Just a difference in spank material and killin' time before a class material.

.. unless you're a bored amateur who enjoys writing as an outlet for stuff floating around in the skull, and notepad is the only place to put it. I've learned that it doesn't matter how many ideas I think I have. If I can't put them into something digestible, they're no good.

Just like someone who can ride horses. You can ride horses, but as horses are individual beasties with individual walnut-sized minds, you still have to do a bit of learning to tailor your approach to that individual equine when you get on their back, because there's no such thing as a "mold" with anything that has a brain. Writing to third-graders about magical unicorns is completely different from describing a fiery, aloof, single-horned beast rife with pretention to young adults (or middle-aged women who collect white horse-with-horn souvenir statues from truck-stops).

The problem is that there are these idealistic, goofy sapheads such as myself who "fall in luuuurve" with their characters in a story. They put too much into them, like dollies in a customized pink house. They think that YOU should love them and care as much about whether Vina loves peanut butter M&Ms, but has a scar on her wrist from self-mutilation, and hates sex over the bed because her evil ex-husband forced her to do it with a loaded gun to her temple, and that's why it took forever for her to hook up with (insert swarthy hot tall dark-haired Clive Robertson clone's name) and get freak-nasty on his posh love-seat before his fireplace while a storm howled outside, flickering the lights with as much crackling uncertainty as the cloying, palpable air that hung tensely over the two grinding bodies and dancing souls. We should be getting on with the ass-slapping, hag-gagging goodness.

So reading this thread and scratching notes as I go, I see now that this is just a trial and error sort of thing. What works some days won't on others. *shrug* that's ok. I got time to figure it out, I guess.

I do have to say that the absolute WORST "story" of all time is Lord of the Dance.

Morons clacking around on stage in purple spandex and tinfoil.

Chief Moron comes out with big-ass belt.

Little weird fart with a pennywhistle and a sparkly yellow ass darts fruitily around.

More clacking.

Loud fake thunder.

Intermission: Dude... wtf is going on- did I smoke more of that joint than I thought I did?

Next round: Clack.
Whistle.

Dance-fight.

End: Oh... so... that was like... a space ship, and this guy here was good, and that guy was... bad... and... they... fought over a big loop of tinfoil... and... ? Yeah, let's go to WaffleHouse.

I honestly didn't know what I'd paid $175 for until 3/4 through the show. I thought it'd be eloquent and inventive like Riverdance was, but no- it was fame-whore over-idealizing "his vision" and not "presenting it to" or "sharing it with" an audience- he was binding us up and spanking us with his big macho Lord of the Dance belt right over our quivering, shocked asses, and then laughing as his evil dance minions bukkake'd us while the Sprite of the Whistle laughed evilly from The Morrighan's fishnet-clad thighs.

Holy shit- I totally need to go to bed. This Mucinex makes me CRAZY. SPEAKING of "irrelevant info-dumps"... here's your example. Except I had an onion on my belt. Which was the style at the time. Not a white onion, though, a yellow one- because of the war. Back in the war, we had bees on our knickles (EDIT- knickle? NICKEL. My gawd... someone break my fingers so I can't type.. but not too badly, I still need to give handjobs occasionally).. gimme five bees for a quarter, you'd say.

aaaa-nnyy-waaaay.

 

[J.Q. Hack]

I think that even short one off stroke stories should contain some backstory, although most don't seem to bother with it. The amount of backstory contained should be proportionate to what you intend to do with the story.

Longer and more complex stories, such as in novellas, you might want to devote more page length to these backstories to help the readers connect more with the characters. At the same time though you don't want the backstory to overwhelm the main story and relegate it to second class status.

Even the short stories can effectively use backstory, even if it is a brief paragraph that just tosses out a tidbit of information as to why Lucy likes anal sex so much or whatever particular thing your characters may or may not be into. No it doesn't give the character much more depth but I think it's a nice touch.

As for where backstory goes I agree with Dr. Mabeuse. It should come after and only after the main tensions and conflicts of the story are adequately introduced. I think "house on fire" aptly describes that process.

J.Q.