A common mistake among beginning novelists is to front-load the narrative with the main character's back story. I've been guilty of this rookie error myself.
There's a sort of flawed logic behind a new writer's tendency to deliver the protagonist's full personality profile, family background, and job history up front. These details are foremost in an author's mind when writing about any character (or they should be). Thus, withholding this information takes considerable discipline.
Some writers are adamant about making formal introductions right away. They worry that readers will have difficulty relating to the characters if their back stories are withheld. This fear is largely unfounded because it projects the author's inverted character priorities onto the reader.
Authors grow attached to their characters' personal histories because they spend copious amounts of time intricately constructing those characters' imaginary lives. Readers, on the other hand, engage with characters based on their responses to conflict.
One might object that foreknowledge of a character's past is required for truly gripping conflict since that's what determines how a character deals with challenges. I reply that this objection is, again, backwards. Detailed background isn't needed to enhance conflict. Conflict reveals background. Dumping half a page of character exposition into the narrative dilutes conflict and diverts reader interest.
When should character background be revealed? Later. After the story's central conflict has clearly emerged, authors can address the cast's back stories at leisure--preferably spread out over the rest of the novel like seed in a tilled field.
I learned that I'd fallen into this trap when several Nethereal beta readers reported difficulty getting past chapter two. When questioned they all agreed that the book's opening was strong, but the second chapter read like a text book. I looked again and saw that they were right. The narrative was bogged down with background minutiae that fascinated me but distracted my readers. Since I was establishing the first novel in a series I couldn't cut all of the exposition, but I did minimize it to the point of readability.
Any other thoughts on handling character background?
Friday, April 12, 2013
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Worst background ever goes to Game of Thrones. Hey look there was all this AWESOME STUFF going on 20 years ago. No, none of it is going to happen now. Instead we're gonna talk about food.
An author has to avoid making a characters background way more interesting than his now.
I'm relieved not to be the only one who feels that way about Game of Thrones. Reading the first book was like watching The Empire Strikes Back without seeing A New Hope first.
That's not praise. Empire excels because its predecessor took care of the setup, leaving ample room for tightly-edited conflict. Since the first actual Song of Ice and Fire book only exists in George R. R. Martin's head, A Game of Thrones is somewhat hobbled by ex post facto characterization and frequent nods to (far more intersting) past events.
Oddly enough, the second SoIaF book contains the rightful third act of the first arc and the first act of another. I think that's why the third book is the best. It's the middle act of a properly established three part cycle.
"An author has to avoid making a characters background way more interesting than his now."
I like that rule. Wolverine used to be the one exception, but the whole "mysterious past" plot device has become a cliche.
Post a Comment