Can you imagine if Star Wars opened with Darth Vader telling Luke he was his father — such a simple statement a major throw away line - people would be like… sure, ok… But delivered the way they did it? HUGE.
The bomb is a good one. That’s one of the biggest issues I see - deflection, deviation or just simply watering down the intensity they’re trying to build.
Bret Lott says backstory is great for the author. Write it so you know who your character is. Then cut it. Maybe paste it somewhere in case you need it later, but cut it.
I’ve found I never need any of the backstory I cut.
Nice article. I think it shows well how even a few sentences of ill-timed backstory hurts momentum.
Past events just aren’t as interesting. They’re usually missing the ingredients needed for engagement unless you get clever. Events which would have been very exciting at the time can be dull to read about if they aren’t the present action of the story.
"Backstory that illuminates a present moment — that makes us feel what a character is feeling right now — is active." Excellent Renee. The reader will effortlessly absorb the backstory if the frontstory is compelling. Is frontstory a word? : )
Great post. And the bad examples are especially helpful. It's useful to see where you could cut off to make it better (albeit not great). Like with the inappropriate CFO one, if you just cut it off after the comment:
"“Hey Sally! So great to see you. You’re lookin hot in those slacks and sensible shoes” Jane Smith, the company’s inappropriate CFO, glides into the room."
Or maybe added a pained but clearly familiar grimace from others as she says this inappropriate thing. Either would communicate the essence of the backstory without having to walk people through it.
I'm not a stickler for "show, don't tell," but it seems like a good way to tackle backstory sometimes. Like, if you can't show it and have to tell, should you really pause the momentum and tell it?
Nick, you have to take it a step further. In this scene, Jane is nobody. We’ll never see her again. When writing scenes it’s important to figure out the point of the scene and the best way to show that to the reader.
The point of this scene was for Sally to tell her team the horrible news of their loss. Delaying that with Inappropriate Jane — was no different than leaning about Mike Smith’s failed hockey career. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
So, if you take Jane out of it, is anything really missing? Does her absence change the core reason for that scene? Both of those are no.
If Jane never walks in, could Sally tell her team the horrible news? Yes. So that shows you Jane was a pointless “pause” or deviation that gave the readers more words, but nothing of substance. Jane added nothing of value.
Oh 100%. In this context, it makes more sense to cut her entirely. I was just struck by the fact that -- in a world where it was important to offer a sense of this person or the work environment or something -- you could do that much better by keeping it a lot shorter.
Reveal is one of he writer's most important tools.
"I an your Father!"
If Obe-Wan had told Luke that ten minutes in...
a good reveal changes how everything is perceived, both what is to come and has already happened.
I once judged a contest. Bomb found in office building. Bomb squad arrives. Good suspense. Then I get two pages on the bomb squad tech's back story.
Suspense fizzled like the bomb. I didn't go any further.
Brad, those are two perfect examples.
Can you imagine if Star Wars opened with Darth Vader telling Luke he was his father — such a simple statement a major throw away line - people would be like… sure, ok… But delivered the way they did it? HUGE.
The bomb is a good one. That’s one of the biggest issues I see - deflection, deviation or just simply watering down the intensity they’re trying to build.
I so appreciate this article! I hate it when writers dump info without first giving a reason for the reader to care.
Great info. Coming from screenwriting I underwrite. I’ve been carefully reading novels with a new eye, appreciating when info is placed strategically.
It’s always a jolt out of the scene when there’s action, then a sudden back story.
Really helpful- thanks 🙏
Bret Lott says backstory is great for the author. Write it so you know who your character is. Then cut it. Maybe paste it somewhere in case you need it later, but cut it.
I’ve found I never need any of the backstory I cut.
Nice article. I think it shows well how even a few sentences of ill-timed backstory hurts momentum.
Past events just aren’t as interesting. They’re usually missing the ingredients needed for engagement unless you get clever. Events which would have been very exciting at the time can be dull to read about if they aren’t the present action of the story.
Not quite the same thing, but I wrote a longer piece about how to make interesting flashbacks, with some positive and negative examples: https://craftywriting.substack.com/p/how-cyberpunk-2077-creates-interesting
So generous, and so helpful. Thank you, Renee!
"Backstory that illuminates a present moment — that makes us feel what a character is feeling right now — is active." Excellent Renee. The reader will effortlessly absorb the backstory if the frontstory is compelling. Is frontstory a word? : )
It is if you want it to be.
Great post. And the bad examples are especially helpful. It's useful to see where you could cut off to make it better (albeit not great). Like with the inappropriate CFO one, if you just cut it off after the comment:
"“Hey Sally! So great to see you. You’re lookin hot in those slacks and sensible shoes” Jane Smith, the company’s inappropriate CFO, glides into the room."
Or maybe added a pained but clearly familiar grimace from others as she says this inappropriate thing. Either would communicate the essence of the backstory without having to walk people through it.
I'm not a stickler for "show, don't tell," but it seems like a good way to tackle backstory sometimes. Like, if you can't show it and have to tell, should you really pause the momentum and tell it?
Nick, you have to take it a step further. In this scene, Jane is nobody. We’ll never see her again. When writing scenes it’s important to figure out the point of the scene and the best way to show that to the reader.
The point of this scene was for Sally to tell her team the horrible news of their loss. Delaying that with Inappropriate Jane — was no different than leaning about Mike Smith’s failed hockey career. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand.
So, if you take Jane out of it, is anything really missing? Does her absence change the core reason for that scene? Both of those are no.
If Jane never walks in, could Sally tell her team the horrible news? Yes. So that shows you Jane was a pointless “pause” or deviation that gave the readers more words, but nothing of substance. Jane added nothing of value.
Oh 100%. In this context, it makes more sense to cut her entirely. I was just struck by the fact that -- in a world where it was important to offer a sense of this person or the work environment or something -- you could do that much better by keeping it a lot shorter.