B is for Backstory-a-go-go

Let me tell you a joke. Two men walk into a bar. And the barman says, “Welcome to the Trapatonni Bar and Grill, first opened in 1932 by Giuseppe Trapattoni, a squat Sicilian who left his homeland with only the shirt on his back and a dream that one day…”

How much more of Giuseppe's story would it take for you to realise the background information had nothing to do with the joke? Not long, I'm guessing.

It used to be different.

Novels used to start with long introductions, family histories and details of past experiences. You have to bear in mind that the novel is not that old an art form. The printing press, affordability, literacy, censorship, lots of things had to align before they started getting popular. And they changed slowly. Even a novel as recent as Lolita starts with pages and pages of family background, childhood escapades and first loves in a very direct manner. Then something changed. Everything began to get quicker. Movies, TV, music, even food, so why not books?

Speed has always been present in our entertainment, thrilling moments of exhilaration, but the pause between those moments was getting shorter and shorter. I think people just became too familiar with the mechanics of presentation. They recognised which were the good bits and which bits were just padding. Of course, when that’s the only game in town there’s not much to be done about it, but people started to have other options. It’s a bit like people fast-forwarding through adverts on their DVR. They can explain that commercials are necessary to fund the shows you love, but nobody gives a shit.

If I’m telling you a joke about two guy in a bar, you don’t need to know the history of the building they’re in to get the joke. You will get a clearer idea of the setting and the situation, but that won’t add to its effectiveness. In fact, it will end up feeling like a delaying tactic because I don’t have a punchline to the joke and I’m trying buy myself some extra time. And that’s how it often feels in a story too. People can tell they’re getting information that will have no bearing on forthcoming events. And they might well be wrong, but they won’t care. Even if you do produce the goods later the signal you’re giving now is one of wasting time and people have gotten very adept at picking up signals (even if you don’t mean to send them out).

There's nothing wrong with backstory. Seriously. It can be a useful, even essential, part of story. But the problem is that usually it’s in the wrong place and not interesting enough. The details you feel the reader needs to be aware of are like any other part of the narrative, they have to engage and interest the reader. They have to be relevant. They have to be more then basic facts told in a dry manner.

If someone you don't know corners you at a party and forces you to listen to their life story the fact that it’s true or that it gives you a clear idea of what that person has been through doesn’t mean you won’t be checking for escape routes. And how long of someone orating at you before you know they aren’t worth listening to? Ten seconds? Twenty? Now consider this, how long before Chatty McChatty realises he’s not worth listening to? Never? Longer? That’s the biggest problem with backstory, the person telling it (or writing it) is the one who finds it hardest to judge it objectively.

Because when it comes to personal history of someone who isn’t you, you have to be interested in knowing BEFORE they tell you. Telling you isn’t what makes the information interesting. Hearing that he was in the army isn’t interesting. Seeing him take down five guys and wanting to know where he learnt to do that, makes the fact he was in the army interesting. Something else has to make you curious first. And then (maybe) you’ll want to know. But that time is not going to be when you first meet them. Not unless they do something amazing first that makes you think, Who the hell is that?

The other thing with backstory is that it’s usually very dull. And it doesn’t need to be. She was born here, lived there, parents did this, she got a job doing that. It’s a job application, not a narrative. Backstory should be a story. It should be interesting. It should be told in an interesting way.

Two men walk into a bar built on the side of a volcano...

If the additional information is unusual it becomes interesting. It should also be noted that the reader will immediately assume the fact the bar is on volcano will be of some relevance. If the joke continues as a normal ‘bar’ joke with no further reference to the volcano, the reader will be miffed. It will seem very odd to have mentioned it in the first place and will actually undermine the joke by distracting from it.  This an extreme example, and obviously if your novel takes place on the side of an active volcano you might want to mention it, but my point is the reader has an expectation based on what you tell them. Which is a good thing, it means the reader is engaged. But you have to be aware of that expectation is, and then you have to fulfil it.

Backstory doesn't need to be removed, it needs to be improved and put in the right place.

In Summary:

1. The worst time for backstory is when you first meet a character. You want to know about them after they’ve made an impression.

2. Listing everyday information about a character’s past is boring. It’s backSTORY, so tell it like one. An interesting one.

3. What you tell the reader should be pertinent to what happens. Either in plot terms or in relation to character. It shouldn’t be there just to add background detail.