By PJ Parrish
I heard from one of my ex-students recently who is struggling with her work in progress. I met her years ago at a three-day workshop my sister and I did at Saturn Booksellers in Gaylord, MI. She was a solid writer with a great attitude who had self-pubbed two thrillers but was looking to up her craft. Hadn’t heard anything since.
But this week, she reappeared on my radar. She was at war with The Beast. Also known as Backstory. And the beast was winning. Here’s part of her email:
Unlike my first book, this book has an important backstory the detective needs to know (and feel) that will help him deal with a tragedy that will be fall him as he solves the current case.
I am having trouble determining where and when to insert the backstory. It has many scenes ( 8 or 9) that I prefer writing as “live” as opposed to telling. It’s important that the backstory character, who we never meet in the current time portions of the book, comes to vivid life.
I need help with tips on when and how to insert and how to make sure the reader knows that the author has suddenly taken them to another time period so they aren’t confused.
Thank You
Jess W.
Ah me. Who hasn’t been in Jess’s place? I know I have. Because Kelly and I dealt with a series, it got easier the farther along we went. By about book 4, we had less urgency to “explain” our protagonist’s past. But we realized, too, that the backstory had to become more layered and nuanced as our character progressed in age and experience.
I told Jess I’d get back to her after I talked to you guys. I asked her to give me a short synopsis of the backstory so I could get a better grip on the problem. I am hoping you’ll hang around here today, read up, and also give her some help.
First, some context. I’ll say it: Backstory is a bitch. You need it to bring your character to life and even illuminate the present-day plot. But man, it can really kill your forward momentum.
One of my go-to teachers on backstory is editor and writing teacher Jane Friedman. I’ve quoted her often in workshops. With 25 years in the publishing biz, she has dispensed easy-to-digest advice mainly via her blog/newspaper The Bottom Line. In 2023, she was named Publishing Commentator of the Year by Digital Book World. Jane’s expertise regularly features in major media outlets such as The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Today Show, Wired, Fox News, and BBC. So let me establish a base line by quoting her on some basics of backstory:
- Characters don’t exist in a vacuum: Who they are, what they want, and why they do what they do is rooted in who they have been and what they have done—in other words, backstory.
- Backstory brings characters to life, gives them depth and dimension, and draws readers in. Without it characters may feel opaque or flat, their actions random or unmotivated.
- But too much backstory can dilute and derail your actual story.
- Backstory is a potent tool in your writing, and like all power tools it must be operated carefully—too much and your story may bog down and stall out; too little and readers may feel uninvested or confused. Finding that balance can be tricky.
I couldn’t have said it better. Here’s the link to her full post on the subject. Read it and don’t weep. It will help clear your head.
Backstory is a tool. A powerful one. It is also a strategy. You have to wield it with a clear head and great deliberation. You never just toss it in.
Here’s what I have learned about finding the “balance” Jane Friedman speaks of: You should reveal backstory details only when they are relevant to the present plot and character development. You should never, ever, info-dump all at once. It must enhance the present narrative by providing context for current events and motivations.
And transitioning from present-plot to backstory is a fine art. I could do an entire blog on that alone. (Go read the link to that in Friedman’s blog). But we don’t have time today, because I want to help Jess out.
Here’s what she sent me about her present-day plot and its backstory:
Archie is a 30+ Detective Sergeant in a medium sized Michigan city. The current timeline opens with Archie responding to the kidnapping of a 5-year-old boy, taken from his bedroom during the night through an unlocked window. These are early investigative chapters with no backstory. There are many suspects—including the child’s mother.
BACKSTORY:
Archie is a loner, by-the-book-cop who takes every case to heart. He feels most of the cops he works are lazy and do not go the extra mile. His only friend is an older ex-sergeant who rescued him from a life of crime as a rebellious teen and put him on the path to the job he now has, resulting in intense loyalty on Archie’s part. The friend is also now a PI.
When Archie was 15, his beloved father was murdered. On day of this murder, Archie overheard a phone call from his mother which led him to suspect she (and an unknown lover) set up the murder of his dad on an isolated highway as he was on his way to buy Archie a used Jeep for his 16th birthday. Archie testified at a grand jury but the local police thought they did not have enough evidence and the crime remained unsolved. Archie’s stance in the case cost him his relationship with his mother and older brother.
Before his father’s murder, the father had purchased a small piece of land high on a hill on a 20-year Land Contract (where the owner financed it). Dad called the place Stardust after the old song. Archie and his brother assumed the contract after dad died. Eventually, Archie bought his brother out, but now is now responsible for all the payments including a large balloon payment coming at the end of the year.
Financially strapped, Archie lives in a small mom-and-pop resort of renetal cabins. His home is a memorial to his father with small reminders of a happy life lived before his mother ruined it all by her series of affairs. His dad’s records, the refinished stereo Archie plays them on, a portrait of him and his dad, a lava lamp his dad gave him, a POW Flag the father used to his hang for Archie’s grandad who never came home from Nam—stuff like that.
A year before the book opens, Archie met a woman who managed to squeeze through his emotional roadblocks. She was bookish and quiet. They connect emotionally when she tells him of her past abandonment, foster care and abuse where her rapist was never held accountable. Archie feels they are both people who never got justice. He falls in love with her. But five months in she suddenly leaves him a note breaking it off. Devastated, his mistrust of the world and women returns with a vengeance. (The woman never appears in the book but we learn of her through back story because who was, how she loved him, and what she does as the book starts to come to a close is vital to Archie’s character arc.)
FOOTNOTES FROM THE WRITER:
I understand there is a lot of material here and it may seem like the love interest overshadows the kidnapping case. But I’m not so sure that the “romance” isn’t worthy of the same page space.
I am wondering if it is possible that this is not a standard mystery but something more mainstream, with many stories told between the same covers? Why does a story have to be one genre? Does there have to be only one plot? And in using the girlfriend as backstory, what is the best way to tell the romance story without losing the momentum of the kidnapping?
Okay, crime dogs. Let’s try to help.
First thing I thought of was the famous quote usually attributed to Joseph Wambaugh. Paraphrasing here: It’s not about how the detective works the case. It’s about how the case works on the detective. In Archie’s case, for his backstory to become relevant, it has to somehow connect to the main plot — the boy’s kidnapping.
Here’s one problem I see immediately: The backstory case — the murder of Archie’s father, maybe at the hands of his wife and her lover — seems far more interesting than the kidnapping. Why? Because Archie is emotionally invested in his father’s death. He has NO INVESTMENT so far in the boy’s case — unless it ties to his hyper-need for justice. But is the vague notion of “justice” enough to connect the two cases? I don’t think so. It’s too impersonal, too ephemeral, too…noble.
I think Jess has to work hard to train the reader’s focus on the boy’s kidnapping and establish sympathy for THAT before she brings in Archie’s past. I haven’t read the manuscript, so I don’t know if this happens. Just raising a red flag here.
Backstory needs a trigger. What would it be for Archie? Something in the present has to trigger the past. If it doesn’t, the backstory steals the spotlight. It is similar to having two equal protagonists — inevitably, one becomes more interesting than the other and the reader then resents it when you move away from the more exciting one.
And what about the love interest? I have mixed feelings about that. Yes, she helped unclench his heart. But then she disappears — from his life AND the plot. Again, unless something in the FORWARD PLOT triggers his memories of her, it feels superfulous.
Backstory must always feel WOVEN IN. Not just attached. Backstory is always a beating heart. It should never be a prehensile limb.
Again, to quote Jane Friedman:
Context, memory, and flashback—the three main forms of backstory—feel most organic when readers can see what sparks the association in the present moment, how that backstory ties into what’s happening in the main story, and how it influences the character in the current story, whether by driving them to take a certain action, make a specific decision, evince a certain behavior, or gain some new understanding of a situation.
Jess asks:
- Why does the story have to be one genre?
- Why does there have to be only one plot?
Of course, you can cross-genre. But you can’t confuse a reader with expectations. Is this a ticking-clock thriller (to save the boy)? Is this a cold-case mystery (To solve Dad’s murder)? Is this romantic suspense (to “save” Archie emotionally?) You, the writer, have to make a choice on THE CENTRAL plot. All else becomes sub-plot, which must then work in service to the main one.
Try this, Jess: Write a three-paragraph summary of your story that would serve as the back copy. I bet, at this point, you cant do it.
And ask yourself that crucial question that unlocks the heart of every story: What does Archie want? Then plumb the depths:
- Most superficially: He wants to save the kipnapped boy
- Next level: He wants to prove himself within his department
- Deeper: He wants to find out who murdered his beloved father.
- Deepest: He wants to quell his own demons.
Whatever backstory you employ, it has to shed light on all of those levels. All else is…well, maybe gist for a different book.
Please feel free to weight in.
Kris, I think your four questions at the end are the key…and it feels to me like #4 is the “real” story trying to get out, meaning this isn’t pure genre (they call this “upmarket” these days, I guess). More about character than plot. In any event, I don’t think it’s possible to give advice here without knowing what the book purports to be…maybe the author doesn’t even know that yet. Your cover copy question is a good starter.
When and how much backstory to reveal is not subject to ironclad advice, as every story needs its own specific stragegy….but I have one axiom that I find always apt: act first, explain later. Up front, let the character act in ways that suggest what’s under the surface without putting on the SCUBA gear for a dive. This will create a current of mystery that is another hook for turning pages. Good luck to Jess.
The JSB Axiom: Act first, explain later. Too many writers do just the opposite.
Always tough. I’m on my 12th Mapleton and I always have trouble getting started because there’s so much that’s happened in the other 11 books, especially about the characters. I strive to avoid spoilers, so I never mention anything related to previous cases or their solutions. Michael Connelly said “the other books are out there; readers can find out for themselves.
When a recurring character shows up, I usually put too much of who they are on the page. I’m looking at my first page right now, and I can spot bits that aren’t needed … yet. That Angie is Gordon’s wife … OK. But that she runs the diner which is closed for remodeling … that can come later.
Yes, if you are deep into a series, it is always a central question: How much backstory to reveal to new readers without boring the old readers. Kelly and I always had that question foremost in our minds as we progressed thru our Louis Kincaid series. I dont’ know if this writer intends her book to be the beginning of series. Maybe she will weigh in. I told her she could if she wanted.
Kris, as you say, the backstory seems far more interesting than the current plot. The kidnapping almost sounds like an excuse to open the portal to the more compelling story of Archie’s past about his father’s unsolved murder and the secret why the love interest left him.
If Archie is a series character, maybe this book would serve better as a separate prequel to current adventures.
Unless there’s a strong connection between the kidnapping and the backstory, the kidnapping is, as you eloquently describe it, a “prehensile limb.”
Hard to tell without actually reading the manuscript, right? Or at least the first couple chapters. We have to care about the boy if we are expected to care about the man (Archie).
If the back story is relevant, include it.
I lack any knowledge of this writers story. That said, if the kidnapped boy’s mother was having an affair, then this could be the trigger that caused the detective to think of his dad’s murder. And, possibly make it relevant to the story.
Just a thought.
Interesting idea.
Love your ‘plumbing the depths questions!’ Seems to me Archie has to identify with the boy as himself. Maybe his best memories of his dad are at that age., and he wants a better ending for the boy than he had. Like JSB said, it’s hard to know without knowing more about the story.
I forget who to credit on that plumbing the depths idea. I heard it years and years ago and it really helped me understand character. The way it was put to me was thru the lens of the character Clarise Starling in Silence of the Lambs. What did she want?
1. To catch Buffalo Bill
2. To impress her boss at the FBI
3. To honor to her dead father’s memory
4. To quell her own demons (metaphorically the crying lamb)
Number 4 was what made the story work. Yet all levels were explored leading up to it.
I have found that novellas are my best form, so I don’t have a lot of room for backstory. What I try to do is hint at it, make it a secondary mystery that the protagonist doesn’t want to talk about. Then drop a sentence or two here and there that helps explain the protagonist’s way of doing things.
This is why I always find short stories so hard to write — because I love backstory! I always liked getting mucky in it and often had to pull myself back out and pay attention to the main plot. Short stories, and to the some extent novellas, don’t give you the room to wallow in backstory. Only wrote one novella and damn it was hard.
A child disappearing is ALWAYS important, particularly if some horrid fate awaits. Either the main character focuses on solving the case, or the backstory needs to be the front story. At best, the backstory informs the character emotionally and intellectually about what is happening in the present.
The detective is all kinds of emotionally crapped up because of what happened in his childhood with his mother’s infidelity and his father’s death. The kidnapping and the child’s parents’ relationship could be a mirror to his past, and the past could be the mirror to the solution. Tie them together.
This kind of backstory could be handled through flashbacks which are always risky because they slow down the reader or through talking with others who remember his own past like his brother. Again, this risks losing the reader because a child is in danger. Maybe the family has ties to his own past. Could the child be his brother’s?
Good input Marilynn. There has to be a tie-in, I agree.
I wish I’d had that advice a couple of years ago. I was stuck in the same tar pit. I didn’t get out until I sorted out my story question and asked myself how much backstory I needed to answer it. I still needed lots but it was manageable. Additionally, understanding what my story was really about allowed me to reduce the word count from ~120k to ~95k, putting it within the sweet sport for fantasy.
I get that, Bill. My first novel efforts were in romance, which tends to be pretty linear. When I tried to switch to mystery (at my agent’s suggestion) I was at sea for a long time. I had too many plot ideas, and yet not one of them was strong enough to carry the narrative load.
Not all backstory is created equal. Much of what is listed as backstory is actually represented by ongoing current behavior. If Archie is grumpy or hostile toward his fellow cops, I know he doesn’t think much of them. Show them being lazy, incompetent, or just plain unlikable. Or if he’s not liking them for another reason, show them being kindly and competent. By the time you roll out his father’s unsolved murder, we’ll get why he doesn’t like them if that’s the real root of his issue.
His friend/mentor ex-sergeant’s relationship/history with Archie can be adequately explained in a simple sentence from the ex-sergeant: “Back when you were wet behind the ears and stealing cars, who was it that believed in you?” or something similar. It doesn’t need much. This is a well-recognized stereotype mentor character as is the teenage criminal become cop.
Being financially strapped can also be taken care of in a quick mention. Maybe at the crime scene, he sees an unpaid bill/notice of eviction that reminds him of his own struggle to pay for the property he inherited from his dad. I’m not sure that the reader needs to know about it being a seller-held contract or that he bought his brother out. Did any of that cause a change in Archie?
The shrine to his father doesn’t need an explanation/info dump. Send Archie home to change his clothes. When he walks in the door of his home, he’ll see (and you get to describe) the way the home is decorated. Archie will handle the items with reverence, will maybe adjust something that has slipped out of place, touch of picture of him with dad. By showing this, you don’t need to tell that he loved his dad.
Really, the two big, difficult pieces of backstory are the unsolved murder of his father, and the breakup of his relationship with the woman. Look for places to dribble those in based on Archie reacting emotionally to something in the present. I would advise staying away from time jump flashbacks and go with a couple of sentences of memory at each instance. Archie is in law enforcement. There should be dozens of daily opportunities to remind him of his dad’s murder going unsolved and how that drives anger behavior from him.
The woman is harder. What does Archie see or do during each day that reopens that wound? Does he feel a stab as he drives by the bookstore because that’s where they met? Does he mutter a warning under his breath about not trusting when he sees a couple holding hands? Does he find someone attractive but turns away instead of smiling at her? Maybe it’s the woman behind the counter at the coffee shop?
I think what I’m trying to say is that showing the reader the results of the backstory is more important than giving the reader a blow-by-blow flashback.
Excellent input for us to chew on, KS. Good, thoughtful commentary. Not just on specific advice but on general thoughts. ie “Look for places to dribble those in based on Archie reacting emotionally to something in the present.”
Thanks so much for showing up for our writer.
My impression is that the father’s unsolved murder is a hundred times more interesting than the main storyline. Thus, as a reader, it’s inconceivable that the case won’t be solved as a side effect of the little boy’s kidnapping. It’s just too juicy, no matter how casually it’s presented.
The love interest is less interesting and more extraneous. Therefore, I expect her to be the kidnapper unless there isn’t the slightest mystery about where she is and what she’s doing. Even then, I’d have my doubts. This is a crime story! Everything is suspected of being a clue or a red herring.
It seems to me the amount and placement of backstory depends on whether this is a stand-alone novel or the first book in a series.
It’s been a while since I read The Dry by Jane Harper, but it had a mystery to be solved in the context of a lot of backstory about the protagonist. She used flashbacks to fill the reader in, and I thought it was effective. Your novelist might want to take a look at that book as a possible source of ideas.
An update. I heard from Jess (who is too shy to post here) and she is thrilled with all your comments. She now realizes what we all do — that the backstory is in danger of overshadowing the present-day plotkidnapping plot. She is going to attempt a dual plot. She thinks she will start out in the past with at least 3 chapters focusing on the 15-year-old Archie learning, in chapter 1, of his father’s death and that he senses something was wrong between his parents. But at 15, he is devastated yet impotent. She will develop that to a crucial point then move to present day adult Archie. The plan is to toggle back and forth UNTIL THE TWO PARALLEL PLOTS converge. Yes, it’s an ambitious structure, but she reports she is excited to try it. She also plans on making the love interest an on-camera presence until she has to leave.
The result: No long flashbacks. No long dumps of backstory. Just two forward-momentum plots that eventually collide.
Thank you all for your valuable input. This was fun.
Oh…she is also jettisoning the older PI mentor, taking to heart those of you who pointed out it is a cliche. I told her to do what JSB sometimes advises — go with your first thought then do the opposite. Archie’s “mentor” or more accurately Greek chorus, is probably now an older woman. 🙂
That is great! I’m glad she found a new strategy. I’ve been lurking because I’ve been trying to wrangle a WIP forever with similar challenges. Two parallel stories that intersect might just work for me, too. Thank you both!
Her struggle gave me an idea for another post, Janet. Am going to write (in my next slot here in two weeks) on the need to decide on a STRUCTURE for your story. Hang around and give us some insights on your own journey.
Backstory – and no info dumps – is easy if you’re an extreme plotter, as I am. Because I know the purpose of every scene in the book before I’ve done that much final writing, it has been easy to keep a file ‘Put in book’ where all the backstory bits are detailed; then, if I haven’t assigned each piece a logical place before (just from the outline), I can go over the list as I write each scene – and the logical place for each bit of backstory seems to just appear.
So far, so good – every piece in that file has gotten used by the final scene.
I think the plotting lives in my subconscious, and the pieces that belong to the story also belong in a particular SCENE in the story.
I think you are right, though it hadn’t occurred to me before reading your comment, that plotters might have an easier time with backstory than we pantsers. Thanks.
My suggestion is bring the romance out of the backstory. Make it current and interweave with the rest of the story. Her new structure may work for Archie’s backstory around his family.
I agree. Yes, she is also going to try that new tactic as well. If the love interest is that important to Archie’s character arc. she deserves to have an on-camera presence.
Sorry I’m late. Still under the weather.
Jess’s problem is a common one. If I were her, I’d turn the father’s murder into the main plot. With the detective’s mother and boyfriend as suspects, it’s far more intriguing than the boy’s kidnapping, though that can still work as a subplot. If she included the kidnapping as another case added to the detective’s workload, she needs to find some commonality between the two cases.
The past romance should be excluded, IMO, or merely referenced if—and only if—something triggers that memory. Otherwise, it feels like an info dump.
Like your iceberg image above, the author should know everything below the surface. The reader only needs to know what’s above the water.
Hope this helps!
I agree. Yes, she is also going to try that new tactic as well. If the love interest is that important to Archie’s character arc. she deserves to have an on-camera presence.