# Backstory in the fantasy novel...



## Schrody (Apr 11, 2017)

How much backstory do you think is enough? I have a dilemma: should I go on with my backstory, i.e., expand it, in which case it might resemble something of LOTR (not by content, mind you); a lot of side characters and their stories, histories, etc. It's actually about character's ancestors and basically, the history of their planet, but it's not the main theme. I really enjoy in writing this part, but I don't want it to be a bore-fest. I know I find it boring sometimes, in some books. What do you think?


----------



## TheWonderingNovice (Apr 11, 2017)

You can have it come up in conversation. I find it better that way and it doesn't come across like an info dump. And it doesn't have to be told all in one peice of dialogue, it could be sprinkled throughout the chapters if its not important to the plot. 

But thats just my opinion *¯\_(ツ)_/¯


----------



## Ptolemy (Apr 11, 2017)

If it is not needed to push the plot right then and there, but is needed for world building and character descriptions, sparse it throughout the novel as you go. The best way to hide it (or as some may say "make it entertaining") is to of course, have it come up in dialogue. It's safe, fun and not hard to do as long as you have a grip on how general conversations work. You could also have it come up with something physical, like a scrapbook/history book, or with say a flashback that starts a chapter. All are doable and all have varying forms of success. However, it is ultimately up to you, the writer, to choose which one to take in regards to your exposition.


----------



## Olly Buckle (Apr 11, 2017)

I agree with the others, some sort of device to sugar the pill rather than a straight dollop of backstory. If it is about ancestry a relative to share it with, or find out about it from might be another possibility. Something that helps you spread it through the story a bit and incorporate it.


----------



## Non Serviam (Apr 11, 2017)

Write it if it's fun for you and helps you envisage the character, but don't feel the need to put everything you write in your novel.  Don't inflict it on the reader unless they need to know it to make sense of the plot.


----------



## Deleted member 56686 (Apr 12, 2017)

With me, I might use a back story within the book, maybe devote a chapter if necessary if it fits into the story itself. Like the others, I wouldn't want to turn it into an info dump. Whatever you do with a back story, you have to ease it in smoothly if you're going to use one at all.


----------



## bdcharles (Apr 12, 2017)

Schrody said:


> How much backstory do you think is enough? I have a dilemma: should I go on with my backstory, i.e., expand it, in which case it might resemble something of LOTR (not by content, mind you); a lot of side characters and their stories, histories, etc. It's actually about character's ancestors and basically, the history of their planet, but it's not the main theme. I really enjoy in writing this part, but I don't want it to be a bore-fest. I know I find it boring sometimes, in some books. What do you think?



For you as the author, I say write it all. That is not to say it will make it into later drafts but if it keeps things alive in your mind then its work is done. The craftsmanship seems to come in later evoking all this BS (hehe) readably and without necessarily stating it outright, though you will have it there to refer back to. Think of your finished novel as the front-of-house representation of your ideas, not the entirety of them.

Afterwards you can always use that old info to write a prequel


----------



## TWErvin2 (Apr 12, 2017)

Consider only using enough backstory so that the reader can understand character motivations and what's going on in the plot. Details can be revealed within the context of the plot.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with having the world and the associated backstory created in great depth, but that doesn't mean all of it will be revealed to the reader. Having all the information/details on hand/established does allow for overall consistency within the story itself.


----------



## Bishop (Apr 12, 2017)

Olly Buckle said:


> I agree with the others, some sort of device to sugar the pill rather than a straight dollop of backstory.



This metaphor is both brilliant and made me hungry somehow.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 12, 2017)

First, I wanna thank everyone who took his/her time to read this thread and shared a piece of their wisdom 

Second, I guess I should've explained the situation a bit more (your advice is great, but maybe it will help you to understand my situation). It starts with the new chapter, and it is sorta of a flashback of the main character - she's communication with the spirit world, and so she "sees" all the events that happened in the past. She needs to marry a guy from another planet to form an alliance to fight against common enemy. Their two planets were once in a war, and I'm starting it with how it all happened, along with the descriptions of the battles, but also her ancestor who was a king at the time, and the ancestors of his ancestors. After "seeing" those events she realizes her marriage, although unwanted, is much needed to protect her people. 

Someone mentioned prequels - I never considered myself as a prequel/sequel writer, but I guess it's possible


----------



## Pages (Apr 12, 2017)

Schrody said:


> It starts with the new chapter, and it is sorta of a flashback of the main character - she's communication with the spirit world, and so she "sees" all the events that happened in the past. She needs to marry a guy from another planet to form an alliance to fight against common enemy. Their two planets were once in a war, and I'm starting it with how it all happened, along with the descriptions of the battles, but also her ancestor who was a king at the time, and the ancestors of his ancestors. After "seeing" those events she realizes her marriage, although unwanted, is much needed to protect her people.



My two cents: write every bit you think you need, all of it, even as a massive info dump - it can be refined later. You already have the setup - she's in communication with the spirit world - and you can describe everything she sees. Your beta readers/editor will let you know if it's too much, too detailed, or not relevant to the main plot.


----------



## Bard_Daniel (Apr 12, 2017)

You can write it all out and then edit it as you see fit, right?

Everyone wins! : D


----------



## AimlessWanderer (Apr 13, 2017)

I agree with the others, blurt it all out on the page, it's part of the creative process. You can go back afterwards to determine how much is enough, and how to incorporate it so it feels like it belongs.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 14, 2017)

Backstory, presented as backstory is a history book—assigned reading. Readers are there to be entertained, not study history.


----------



## Ptolemy (Apr 14, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Backstory, presented as backstory is a history book—assigned reading. Readers are there to be entertained, not study history.



Still, if you have no set up, you have no payoff. Exposition, even in its meandering forms is still needed, there is no way around that. Especially in a fantasy novel of all things. Without backstory you cannot establish, and when you cannot establish you run the risk of confusing the reader. In my opinion, it's better to bore rather than confuse.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 14, 2017)

Even backstory is a story. If you can make any story entertaining then why not the backstory? In that perennial reference work, my novel, girl meets boy in the opening chapter, but that's followed by sixteen chapters of backstory to explain how that came about. Some readers have been so convinced that that is the main story that they have even suggested leaving out the first chapter, but if I did that I couldn't present them with the other side of the real story, boy meets girl. This means that so far almost my entire reputation as a writer is based on my ability to make the backstory entertaining. I'm content with that.

As the longer story unfolds those sixteen chapters become the history against which the real main story is told. I haven't got very far with writing that though. You mentioned LoTR, but isn't The Hobbit the backstory to that, explaining how hobbits first became involved in saving middle earth, rather than the Silmarillion? The latter is apparently long-winded history according to a friend who tried reading it, but the former was originally a popular children's story which prompted the writing and publication of LoTR.

Backstory or forestory, they're all the same and need the same treatment. Backstory is just a story within a story. At exactly what point in my trilogy should I mention the background legend that starts in the garden of Eden or if one prefers it, the origin of the universe, for example, because I do have that written? People may debate about flashbacks but writing strictly chronologically isn't always practical. 

Here's an example of how to make the backstory entertaining from the film Airplane II. Perhaps not the best example though.



> *Steve McCroskey*: Jacobs, I want to know absolutely everything that's happened up till now.
> 
> *Jacobs*: Well, let's see. First the Earth cooled. And then the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 14, 2017)

JustRob said:


> Even backstory is a story. If you can make any story entertaining then why not the backstory? In that perennial reference work, my novel, girl meets boy in the opening chapter, but that's followed by sixteen chapters of backstory to explain how that came about. Some readers have been so convinced that that is the main story that they have even suggested leaving out the first chapter, but if I did that I couldn't present them with the other side of the real story, boy meets girl. This means that so far almost my entire reputation as a writer is based on my ability to make the backstory entertaining. I'm content with that.



I'm in similar position; this backstory and characters aren't main characters, but they will appear later in the story.



JustRob said:


> As the longer story unfolds those sixteen chapters become the history against which the real main story is told. I haven't got very far with writing that though. You mentioned LoTR, but isn't The Hobbit the backstory to that, explaining how hobbits first became involved in saving middle earth, rather than the Silmarillion? The latter is apparently long-winded history according to a friend who tried reading it, but the former was originally a popular children's story which prompted the writing and publication of LoTR.



I mentioned LOTR because it has a lot of backstories - while Frodo & co. travels to Mordor, you have a story of Gondor, story of Rivendell, story of Rohan... Actually, Hobbit is the prequel, not a backstory (don't know how's it happening in the books, but in the movies, it starts with Bilbo writing his book about his journeys...), and it's been published before LOTR (I think).


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 15, 2017)

> Still, if you have no set up, you have no payoff.


There's no payoff if the reader, bored by having to study a chapter of history says, "Screw this," and turns to something entertaining to read.

Sure, you have to provide _necessary_ backstory, a line here and there, and a paragraph or two the sections that sew live scenes together. But if, for example, you're setting a story in modern day Japan, it's possible that to understand what's motivating a character to act, in a specific situation, they may need to know that the character went through hell following the second world war. But that's what they need to know. They don't need to know the details of the war, because story happens, moment by moment. The minute you drop into overview mode it becomes a report. 

Start a scene with an info-dump of any kind and you risk losing the reader, unless you've placed them into the position of _needing_ to know the information—from their viewpoint, not the author's.

Most backstory can be provided as enrichment in necessary prose:

Jason trudged past the ivy covered remains of downtown Newark, the bombed out husks barely recognizable now as more than natural bumps in the earth.

He shook his head at what fools they were, not to see what was coming. But still, things like water that flowed from pipes, right in the house, as hot as you wanted it to be, must have been wonderful.

But dwelling on legends of distant past wasn't putting dinner on the table, so he refocused on what mattered, and...

Eighty-five words, and the reader knows that there was a war, long over, that involved massive destruction. They know that Jason is a hunter, by necessity, and that his life is, by our standards, primitive. They know that the ivy is leafy enough to mask the buildings, so it's past spring and before fall. We know that Jason is trudging, so he's probably been walking for long enough to be tired of it. We've placed him in what probably used to be Delaware. So you have scene setting, we know whose skin we're wearing, and we had a tiny bit of character development. And it was done through what Jason noticed and reacted to, without having to freeze poor Jason in place while someone whose voice you can't hear, ladled in information you may not need or want to know.

Do we need to know who fought whom to follow the action in the scene? No. Does it matter what blew the buildings down? Not yet. What matters is what matters to Jason, because it's his life. And his life is our story at the moment. If Jason stumbles on someone transported from the past, it may become more important. But if it does, the time traveler telling Jason what matters in his/her moment of now is heard by the reader, too.

*“*To describe something in detail, you have to stop the action. But without the action, the description has no meaning.”
~Jack Bickham

“Good writing is supposed to evoke sensation in the reader, not the fact that it’s raining, but the feeling of being rained upon.”
~ E. L. Doctorow


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 15, 2017)

> If you can make any story entertaining then why not the backstory?


Because story, if presented in the viewpoint of the protagonist, places the reader into that character's moment of now, making their future uncertain. And readers feed on uncertainty and worry. We're never happier than when we've been made to say, "Damn...what do we do now?" If you have a strong character viewpoint we know what matters to the protagonist, and what they hope to accomplish by their actions, so we have reason to wonder what's going to go wrong (something always does because it's the nature of storytelling), and how that will effect our protagonist. In other words, we're emotionally invested in the protagonist _and care_.

But backstory is overview. It's not happening, it happened, so it's immutable, with no uncertainty—just facts, with nothing to entertain the reader. If readers were seeking information they'd be reading history books. After all there's betrayal, romance, and everything we read fiction for. But history books don't sell as entertainment because there's no uncertainty, just fact following fact.

So lard your story with sections of history; stop the action to step on stage and talk about the past, and how does that play with the reader, who is seeking to be entertained on every page? If the story was buzzing along, your reader doesn't _want_ to stop the scene clock and kill the scene's momentum. That's one of the reasons acquiring editors aren't in love with flashbacks. So if you do still the scene clock and step on stage, that backstory had better be more entertaining than the story was, to pay the reader for the unwanted interruption. 

And if that backstory is more entertaining than the story? You need to work on the story.


----------



## Phil Istine (Apr 15, 2017)

Probably not appropriate for a fantasy novel but I'm currently working on a piece where the backstory _is_ the story.  The MC is in a therapy session after being committed for doing something totally bizarre, and the story is him telling the therapist about his life and how he arrived at the point of the incident.  It seems to be working, though I'll know better when it's more complete (someday  ).


----------



## Ptolemy (Apr 15, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> There's no payoff if the reader, bored by having to study a chapter of history says, "Screw this," and turns to something entertaining to read.
> 
> Sure, you have to provide _necessary_ backstory, a line here and there, and a paragraph or two the sections that sew live scenes together. But if, for example, you're setting a story in modern day Japan, it's possible that to understand what's motivating a character to act, in a specific situation, they may need to know that the character went through hell following the second world war. But that's what they need to know. They don't need to know the details of the war, because story happens, moment by moment. The minute you drop into overview mode it becomes a report.
> 
> ...



I feel you are missing the point. I'm not suggesting you douse the reader in backstory, one or two lines or a paragraph or two a chapter is fine. But the thing is, backstory is a neccesary evil. Even with your example, the "war" you described brings up a lot of questions. Like who perpetrated it? Was it nuclear? Chemical? Why is Jason walking through nuclear fallout if it is nuclear? What did the government do? etc and etc. Now, you may say "this provides interest for the reader to turn the page" but what it really means is that there is more exposition and backstory needed later on. See? It's a necessary evil in writing. We always need a set up, granted, not a long one, but a set up nonetheless, to provide a payoff for the reader. Also, a lot of your "reasonings" in your examples are subjective. How do we know he's a hunter specifically? How do we know he's not  a bandit? or a Mercenary? Also, the use of Ivy doesn't necessarily insinuate summer.

I'll akin it to the _Eleventh Plague _by Jeff Hirsch, which is a book that does what you are trying to do; piece together a dystopian society with no real backstory involved. And in my humble opinion as a reader, the book was very sub par (Actually for more than a few reasons outside of a real need of backstory but w/e). Basically Hirsch tosses us into a world of straight up unexplained circumstances, he basically banks off of the title of a "Plague" and "World War 3" to be his real driving backstory on why everything is so screwed. However, Hirsch tries to get cheeky and make it more than just a dystopian book by focusing on a well underdevloped character and his friends for around half of the thing, with no backstory on what people were actually there for: The world. The _Eleventh Plague _was released in the early dystopian book times where YA were just eating them up like candy. That's why the book has semi decent reviews on book sites. Because it was with the times as a book, even though it is very sub par developed wise. There is no "antagonist" its like what you say "we don't know who the main character is fighting," they are literally unnamed guys and one of them has a scar across his eye. That's it. This is again due to a lack of exposition on those characters, it leaves you with no set up to develop with. Which caused a very weak and unsatisfying conclusion. Hirsch basically just capitalized on the dystopian craze and made bank off it while still not placing in what made a good dystopian good. The exposition and backstory, he focuses on underdeveloped characters, even though that is the premise of the story, and people seem to be realizing that now. 

You need to now your audience when writing certian types of books. And dystopian fiction relies mostly on the backstory of the world building. Divergent? War that left certain cities in ruin, government forced to set up walled in cities to test who are "truly human" etc etc. There is probably around 4 solid chapters in the last book focused straightly on backstory. Hunger Games? Again, war that was carred out left the country in hell, set up cities as one big experiment, death games for loyalty. Probably even more backstory on this too in all the books. Maze Runner? We are literally given a full book on how it started, with around 6 chapters of exposition in that book about solar flares. 

Now, I know, "different genres" but I would still put my foot down on that exposition "bores readers" If anything, well used exposition, flashbacks, backstory w/e can enhance, if not improve the readers understanding of your work. Boring the reader is surly a problem if you use it incorrectly, like leaving in blocks of straight words in front of a reader instead of parsing it through dialogue, flashbacks, items etc. But if exposition is used correctly, like in the Hunger Games etc and avoids the Hirsch problem then there is no reason to not involve it in the book for sake of "boring the reader"

Also the quotes you use are of writers in days by gone. E.L Doctorow's niche was that he was "ambitious and innovative" and he worked with a completely different subset of the genre: Historical Context. Where no exposition or backstory is needed on the setting/antagonist is needed because the reader already has knowledge of the backstory/exposition through prior events like school. They were recognizable settings that Doctorow set us into and passed by this whole discussion of "exposition" due to us not needing any exposition, and since this was the case, he full fully in depth himself in "making the reader evoke some sensations through his writing." Jack Bickham is what I would label towards being outdated. He was a writer prominently featured in the sixties and seventies. Then worked as a professor in "professional writing" till the nineties.  He is correct. But some readers these days that want that detail, and there are ways to continue detail while still allowing the action and the plot to move forward. 

And this is needed item in what Schrody is attempting to accomplish. See Bickham and Doctorow are not fantasy writers, they are a Realistic Fiction writer and a Historical Context writer who may have two completely different views on how writing is supposed to be for their select genres. Fantasy, needs some umph some character and set up for there to be successful plot presentation and world building. Without backstory, many Fantasy novels just plain fall. Readers want to know whats going on. Readers are bored by underdeveloped characters, sappy, long winded, and unoriginal dialogue, poorly presented scene presentation, and a variety of other things. Not just "expostion and backstory" I feel that if you cannot develop a character, the reader will get bored. It wont be because there is a minute amount of scene setting or "backstory" its because they cannot relate or characterize with that character. Causing them to feel bored and out of place. But do as you do, all writers have different ideas on what the reader feels when they read a piece of work, and we can never truly know what every reader feels like. Only the reader knows that.


----------



## JustRob (Apr 15, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> > If you can make any story entertaining then why not the backstory?
> 
> 
> 
> Because story, if presented in the viewpoint of the protagonist, places the reader into that character's moment of now, making their future uncertain. And readers feed on uncertainty and worry. We're never happier than when we've been made to say, "Damn...what do we do now?" If you have a strong character viewpoint we know what matters to the protagonist, and what they hope to accomplish by their actions, so we have reason to wonder what's going to go wrong (something always does because it's the nature of storytelling), and how that will effect our protagonist. In other words, we're emotionally invested in the protagonist _and care_.



The "nowness" is decided by the writer at all times. The readers feed on knowledge of things that they didn't know before regardless of chronology. I have been watching the TV series _Black Sails _in which, amongst other things, it reveals how Long John Silver lost his leg and that chest of treasure got buried on that island by Captain Flint. The story also manages to be historically accurate at the same time with real characters from history doing what they actually did. It is a rivetting series but all backstory to a far more famous one, although that is almost irrelevant. As with many stories it is difficult to say who the _effective_ protagonist is, maybe Long John Silver or Flint, but it doesn't matter; the story is all that matters and I am eager to watch the final season.

I think one protagonist in one timeline is a simplistic structure and not wholely applicable to many stories.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 15, 2017)

That's not backstory, it's a flashback. A far different beast


----------



## JustRob (Apr 16, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> That's not backstory, it's a flashback. A far different beast



Okay, so let's say that a character says something that implies a past event; that's backstory, no doubt.
Now the character elaborates on what they said; still backstory so far, yes?
Now they are actually going on at length, telling the backstory in fact; what is it now?
Now they are so deeply into their tale that the reader is there in the past with them, living the moment; so that's flashback, isn't it?
Now the character listening to them ... does what? Do they say how fascinated they were or how bored? That's up to the writer.

It would appear that there is an indeterminate transition here between what might be called backstory and flashback. They are not far different beasts to my mind but just similar creatures along the same evolutionary path. Is it merely the nature of the narrator that defines them in my example or something else? Perhaps one could say that backstory is implied rather than told, but then even the forestory is supposedly shown, i.e. implied, not told, so no different. 

I would say the writer must simply be aware of the fluid nature of styles of writing and consciously place their own wherever along the evident sliding scale they think best. Nothing is black and white in writing apart from the text itself even though terminology has been invented to imply that it is. We shouldn't allow semantics to rule our lives though.

On a lighter but relevant note I like the way that comedies tackle this subject. For example, in the various TV series and films starring Leslie Nielsen they would often comment on some tantalising item of backstory or irrelevance but then cut off explaining it any further saying, "but that's not important right now," the point being that it might not have been important but it could well have been entertaining if they had elaborated on it. On the other hand, in the film_ Airplane _flashbacks are ridiculed with passengers committing suicide and literally dying of boredom when Ted relates his past experiences at length by that means. So, we have to face it, that every device in storytelling is a cliché sooner or later, but that doesn't mean that we should paint ourselves into a corner (!) trying to avoid them all. "Tried and tested" means that "if it ain't broke don't fix it", doesn't it?

Finally, taking that perennial example LoTR, offhand I can't remember how it was explained how Gandalf the Grey came to return as Gandalf the White. Was that backstory or flashback or did he just say, "I had a bit of trouble for a while back there, but that's not important right now"? I doubt it was the latter. As a reader I don't think I was that bothered about how it was told, just that I found out what happened regardless of when it happened. Perhaps I'm just a tolerant reader though and expect my own readers to be equally so if they want to be entertained.


----------



## Book Cook (Apr 16, 2017)

JustRob said:


> ...TV series _Black Sails... _The story also manages to be historically accurate at the same time with real characters from history doing what they actually did. It is a rivetting series...




Sorry for the digression, but I just have to ask if pirates really were supermodels with full sets of pearl-white teeth?


----------



## Kyle R (Apr 16, 2017)

If there are just bits and pieces of backstory that need to be included, I'll sneak in little clues here and there.

A little boy climbs through the wreckage of a city, perhaps, and imagines he's back in time, during the war. He picks up a dented pipe and pretends to fire it at an invading airship. He tells his dog to run from a hydrogen grenade, and the two of them scamper across a bombed-out schoolyard, leaping from one weed-grown crater to the next.

The reader then learns, from our protagonist's play, that there was once a war here—and though they'll probably still have questions (What caused it? What was it about? Who won?), sometimes these kinds of unanswered questions are a good thing. Keeps a sense of intrigue and hints at a deeper story-world for the reader to discover.

If there's a _lot_ of backstory to include, though, I prefer flashbacks—so it feels like the backstory is happening in real time. This way it's live action, instead of detached exposition. 

Whatever way you do it: make it page-turning. :encouragement:


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 16, 2017)

> Even with your example, the "war" you described brings up a lot of questions


But none of those questions are relevant to his purpose in trudging down the street, so stopping the scene clock and killing momentum for a history lesson would only serve to slow the narrative. And there's another name for that class of question: interest. It's something the reader hopes will be answered, and it should be. But when we're trying to convince the reader that this story is entertaining?  No. I use this quote from Sol Stein a lot, because he said it well:

“A novel is like a car—it won’t go anywhere until you turn on the engine. The “engine” of both fiction and nonfiction is the point at which the reader makes the decision not to put the book down. The engine should start in the first three pages, the closer to the top of page one the better.”

And to a large extent, that applies to the opening of any scene.





> but what it really means is that there is more exposition and backstory needed later on


Absolutely not. You've missed the point. If I can provide all that I did in as few lines, as part of The protagonist's viewpoint—without having to stop the scene clock—why assume that I have to step on stage and blather on about history later? The narraror is neither in the story nor on the scene. And since the reader can't hear the emotion in a narrator's voice, anything the narrator says while on stage is heard in a monotone, modified by the emotion inherent to the words, and the punctuation. And how much emotion is inherent to a history lesson?

Remember, too, that your reader isn't with fiction in the way they are for a film. They may spend ten minutes reading at lunch, and not get back to the book till after the weekend. So anything you tell them before it's necessary knowledge will probably be forgotten.

Want them to know that atomic weapons were used? Have him tell someone, "Don't go into that area. It's poisoned with something called radioactivity, whatever that means. People who spend time there die." No need for you to explain further because the reader knows it _as he understands it._ and he's our protagonist, so his view of the world must be ours if we're to see his world as he does. He's our measuring stick, the one we use to calibrate our own responses.





> Also, the use of Ivy doesn't necessarily insinuate summer.


Boston Ivy loses its leaves in winter. But you're right, I should have used another plant.





> And in my humble opinion as a reader, the book was very sub par  (Actually for more than a few reasons outside of a real need of  backstory but w/e).


So wait...you chose a story you didn't like, that also had not a lot of info-dumps of backstory, and that's your proof that we should have paragraphs of backstory dumped in?

Remember, I'm not against backstory, only stopping the scene to ladle in a lecture on history. Did you like Heinlein's, Starship Troopers? He starts his stories with action, not history. How about Frank Herbert's Dune? No backstory dump there.

Look at the first three paragraphs of David Brin's, The Postman. Not a trace of backstory, but the scene setting there, coupled with mention of the "Doomwar," and calling the pistol the product of another age pretty well places the reader in a dystopian society. And that book won awards and spawned a film. He opened with something very like the example I gave—scene-setting, not a history lesson.





> You need to now your audience when writing certian types of books.


When writing _anything_ you need to know your audience. But that's a subject unrelated to stopping a scene to drop in a history lesson, or opening one with an info-dump.

I'm not trying to start an argument, and I don't think we're in disagreement as much as you seem to feel. Backstory is necessary. There's no doubt of that. My point is that if it can be inserted where needed, as the protagonist requires the knowledge to act, you avoid POV breaks and authorial intrusion.





> There is probably around 4 solid chapters in the last book focused straightly on backstory. Hunger Games?


Look at book one's opening. She wakes and we learn of her world through what she sees and reacts to, not what a dispassionate narrator says to us. We learn some of _her_ backstory, not history. Historical background comes through a word or an observation relevant to the action within the scene. Were the opening told in third person it would still be in her viewpoint, and non-intrusive. But, were a narrator to  open with a lecture on how the situation came to be and the things that led to her being where and who she is, it probably would have been rejected.

Even in Mockingjay, Katness interjects herself, and her reaction and opinions into the descriptions of what happened away from her. One of the strengths of first person is that you can do that. So the backstory presented is what Katness finds important enough to base her behavior on. So none of it is an info-dump of history.





> Also the quotes you use are of writers in days by gone.


So you're saying that readers don't expected to be hooked in the first three pages anymore, as Sol Stein said? The goal is now to make the reader know it's raining, not to make them feel as if they're experiencing the rain? I can't agree.





> See Bickham and Doctorow are not fantasy writers,


Bickham's position at Oklahoma University was director of the legendary Short Fiction workshops that had an attendee list that read like a who's who of American fiction, And he was awarded the title, Honored Professor. The man successfully wrote and sold seventy-five novels. So he sure as hell had to be doing something right. The evidence suggests that the man knew how to hook a reader. And since that must be done within a few pages, what has the genre to do with that? All genre have their unique way of presenting things, but I know of none that encourage starting a scene with a dispassionate voice providing a history lesson.


----------



## egpenny (Apr 16, 2017)

You have the history written out, complete with battles. Why can't you start with the war and it's history as the stor_y_? Then skip ahead to the time your protagonist is seeing what happened, and then move on with the rest of the main story. Both are pieces of the main story. Just a thought.
Sorry if this repeats what others have said. I didn't read them all.


----------



## Jay Greenstein (Apr 17, 2017)

> Now they are actually going on at length, telling the backstory in fact; what is it now?


A lecture. The author has become become a talking head, which is a story killer. For why, look at this. Jack Bickham also addressed the point, in his book, Scene and Structure, with: *“*To describe something in detail, you have to stop the action. But without the action, the description has no meaning.”





> Now they are so deeply into their tale that the reader is there in the  past with them, living the moment; so that's flashback, isn't it?


No, a flashback is a live scene, hot a lecture on the details of the past. And one of the more serious problems with flashbacks is that if you were writing the scene vividly, and the action was intense, the reader doesn't _want_ you to stop, which is why a flashback is best inserted between a scene and its sequel, or before the start of a new scene. And, you're making a flawed assumption, that because the author is talking about the past the reader will be living the moment the author is talking about, and get "deeply" into it. But telling has no emotional content because like history, it's immutable, and therefore has no uncertainty, the thing a reader feeds on. If we're in the moment the protagonist calls now, we may speculate on the future, and the result of the protagonist's actions. Remember, the protagonist is living in real-time, and must address their problems immediately. Stop that and you kill any momentum the scene may have developed. 

The author, though can interrupt the flow of facts and say, "Be back in a moment, I need to take a piss." There's no immediacy in facts, and damn little emotional content. How can the audience feel a sense of urgency when they're hearing an overview?





> It would appear that there is an indeterminate transition here between what might be called backstory and flashback.


Only if you change the definition of what a flashback is from a live scene that occurred before the action in the present scene, to the author interrupting the present scene to talk about things in the past.

I can't link to my own articles within a post, but for why telling—as a flashback or in a scene in the primary story—is counterproductive, you might take a look at, Inside Out.


----------



## Terry D (Apr 18, 2017)

Schrody said:


> How much backstory do you think is enough? I have a dilemma: should I go on with my backstory, i.e., expand it, in which case it might resemble something of LOTR (not by content, mind you); a lot of side characters and their stories, histories, etc. It's actually about character's ancestors and basically, the history of their planet, but it's not the main theme. I really enjoy in writing this part, but I don't want it to be a bore-fest. I know I find it boring sometimes, in some books. What do you think?




Hey, Schrody! If your eyes haven't completely glazed over from reading through all the hair-splitting, I'd offer this: Your book needs to conform to your vision for it. If that vision includes a lot of back-story, so be it. You obviously know that back-story, and its twin sister, info dump, can pose a risk to the momentum of your tale. But both have been used well many times. I don't know if you've ever read Dan Simmons' award winning book, _Hyperion_, but that book is all about back-story and it's a terrific read.

Asking any "should I do this, or should I not?" question on an internet forum will always end up in a 'discussion' where members pick sides and start arguing. And I think that's funny because the real answer is always the same: Do what works best for your story, but make sure you do it well. Focus on the writing. Get that right and your readers will be engaged no matter how you handle the back-story. One warning, however, make sure the historic info you share is stuff the reader needs to know, not just cool stuff you want to write about. Your reader doesn't need to know everything about your world and its history, just the stuff that's necessary to your plot. Good luck!


----------



## JustRob (Apr 19, 2017)

Jay Greenstein said:


> Remember, the protagonist is living in real-time, and must address their problems immediately. Stop that and you kill any momentum the scene may have developed.



That is probably where our thoughts diverge. My only experience is in writing my one novel, which itself questions the significance of "real-time". In fact most of its action takes place in "read time", which is pronounced and written in the novel as "red time". This is a metafictional reference to the fact that "now" is whatever time the text is currently describing and past and future are simply other places in that text. In fact "red time" itself is outside of any normal concept of time from the protagonist's viewpoint, just as it is outside of the reader's real time. That is what the clocks in my avatar represent, to both the reader and the characters within the story.

My story relates the experiences of my protagonist _in the order that he experiences them _regardless of any concept of reality. This means that he may even daydream at times but those daydreams are his present experience until he is prompted to pay attention to reality again, not that that "reality" is any more real than his daydreams. One of my readers commented that he expected me to write in a far more experimental style but found that I had written a relatively conventional science fiction novel. That was the challenge for me though, to write experimentally in a way that did not draw attention to the fact. Obviously given my limited experience of writing in a more conventional fashion our views are bound to differ, which just demonstrates the breadth of literature.

I am very interested in the psychology and philosophical aspects of reading fiction. In fact when I started writing I read about that as much as about how to write stories. As writers we are offered a place within the reader's mind where we can build our worlds and we need to understand that place and how it functions, which you clearly appreciate. Schrody's OP asks the very pertinent question as to how much time we can devote to decorating it rather than filling it with action. I have no real idea what the answer is and suspect that it varies enormously from reader to reader. That is why I am a mentor solely for beta reading rather than any form of writing, because I want to find out what readers actually experience, not what writers believe they should be feeding to them. Feedback is important, just as backstory may be.

Science fiction, fantasy and world building are popular subjects in WF and writing these genres needs a clear understanding of what can be achieved within that space inside the reader's mind. As Terry has implied, there is no tried and tested formula in writing, only that perpetually mysterious place, the reader's mind, to explore. 

There is no perfect way to write a story, just more clichés to be invented, but let's do it anyway, each in our own way.


----------



## Schrody (Apr 28, 2017)

I know this thread kinda died, but I wanna say a few things:

First, I wanna thank everyone for replying and sharing their bits of writing wisdom <3 

Second, I decided I'll leave the backstory the way it is, and the rest (expanding the universe) will be written for the prequel, and not only that - I have an idea for the sequel as well! Who would've thought; I've never considered myself as a "prequel-sequel" writer ^^


----------

