What are your opinions on leaving scenes with backstory(the kind where it's revealed all at once) or flashbacks in the final draft of a novel? I heard somewhere that either of them can stop the forward motion of the plot. I have a couple scenes like that, and I'm trying to decide whether or not to edit them out. Help would be appreciated.

It depends. If they're well done, or the rest of the novel won't make sense, then sure, use them.

It really depends on how you do it, but I think it can actually help the reader experience become more intense if you include flashbacks or backstory in some scenes. I would prefer flashbacks personally, but I suppose backstory would work as well if done right.

The reason I think it can actually add is because you're stepping out of the now into the past to get a better look at the fullness of what the now means to the plot and the character. So you're still adding to the story, the plot, the characterization - and the reader should come away satisfied. They should actually be more excited to continue reading the conclusion of whatever you interrupted. (It should be granted that the flashback/backstory needs to contain essential information that adds to the story and even to the scene being interrupted.)

Sometimes slowing down is speeding up. It can actually heighten tension and reader interest if you slip in a flashback that temporarily suspends the present flow of the story. The main story-line will itch at the back of your reader's mind as they read the flashback, and once they're done they'll be totally ready to dive right into the continuation. That is if you're interrupting a scene. If you're not interrupting anything, but putting the flashback between scenes, you can still get some of the same effect, especially if the flashback establishes more of the plot and has a big effect on the way the readers views the present developments within the story.

Think of it like this: you're painting a picture, but underneath the layer of details you're painting right now, there's layers and layers of the past, of the greater context that upholds the present story and makes it what it is. But the reader can only see what you're painting right now. So a flashback is basically peeling back the layers and showing your readers some of that bigger context so they understand what's happening in the present better. So it doesn't take away from the story at all. It adds to it.


Anyway, that's what I think about flashbacks. You do have to be careful that you do them right, though, and that there's not too many.

Areth.

Karthmin! I hadn't ever thought of it like that, so thank you.

I can explain the actual scenario:
One of my antagonists has an interesting reason to do what he does, and I want to tell the reader about it somehow. I have it that my MC makes him remember because of something he says, so I think it works, but as the writer, I can't look at it objectively. I think it adds to the story, but I'm not sure if it actually does.

Sure!

Okay, so I'm taking it that your antagonist is getting POV time in the story, right?

Are you talking about character motivation in whole, or interesting reason for a specific action (or set of actions)?
If you're talking character motivation (why he does what he does), then definitely keep it. Especially if it gives the character more history in the process.

If you're talking interesting reason for a specific action, then it depends on the thematic importance of that action for the story and the character. If it's something that marks the antagonist and gives him some more character, and has thematic or symbolic significance for the story, then it's definitely a keeper. If not, it might not add that much to the story.

A good thing to keep in mind is to match the length of your back-story or flashback with its relative importance to the story and characters. If it's a little detail that adds a nice touch but isn't super important, it should be dealt with briefly. A sentence or three is probably good.
But the more important the flashback, the more umph you should give it - by making it a little longer.
Unless....you want it to stay out of sight until the reader knows more later on and then looks back and says, " So THAT'S what that was!!!"

[To me, backstory is an attempt to integrate the past into the present narrative so as to not make a huge deal out of it, while flashback is separate from the present narrative and is kinda a big deal just by being there. So depending on the importance of the event, you could either try to streamline (backstory) or accentuate (flashback) the event. That's just how I classify them, though.]

I don't know if that'll help. I hope so...

Objectivity.....*shivers*....how I wish I could attain that with my stories.

Areth.

I think if you want to do backstory well (whether in the form of a flashback or not), you have to put it in because you think the reader wants to know it, not because you think the reader should know it. You can't put it in and be like 'well, it might be a bit boring for people right now, but it'll be important later on'. I mean.. it might be important later on. But then, you have to figure out some way of making it so that the reader wants to know it, too, right then.

The only exception I can think of is if the backstory piece is very, very short, like only a sentence long. Then the reader doesn't have any time to get impatient with you. * grins *

In The Hunt For Red October, there is a scene that reveals the identity of an espionage informer. It didn't actually say that he was the espionage informer, and a couple of my family missed it when they read the book, but I was watching for it. The thing was, you knew certain facts about the informer, you just didn't know much, or know his name. And then you came to one of the Russian scenes, and there was this guy, and the narrative starts talking about him, and telling some of his backstory, and some of his habits, and I guess if it had been talking about someone else, it would have been a little boring... But I recognized who it was, and as the narrative went along with the backstory, I only got more excited, because I got more and more sure that it was him (I had had several false alarms before, wondering if some random character was him).

Anyway, that was a good place to put in backstory, because I really wanted to read it. It revealed the identity of the informer and increased the tension of the scene and the next few scenes following--and, I had been wanting to know about that guy and his backstory for half the book.

I don't think I have anything to say about backstory relevancy, because I think Karthmin said everything pretty well.

He is right about how the past of a character is the only way to see what the now means properly. It makes things fuller and bigger. The entire first piece of The Count of Monte Christo is really backstory for the rest of the book. It wouldn't work right without it. Everything goes back to that very first piece, and the people in it, and what they did.

I agree with this. One thing though: the longer the piece of backstory is, the later you might want to put it in the book, to give people time to be curious and get thinking about it.

K.M. Weiland of Helping Writers become Authors just posted something about this today. Although, I think she's saying pretty much what Mistress Rwebhu said.

Yes, that was very helpful and insightful.


Ah, so I'll look back at it and see if the reader would actually want to know it. It probably is just me wanting them to know it. Thank you!


I read this, and it was quite helpful.

So I think I'll probably either add in more hinting and the sort or save it until later. Thanks all of you!