How important is backstory?

Do you need to know where a major character came from, in order to relate to them or enjoy the story? And how much history do you want?

 

I think backstory is very important to the writer. I think the writer should certainly explore characters in different ways, to include throw-away stories you tell about the character just to get to know them.

But - and it's a BIG but - I do NOT want all that life history in the actual narrative. Just what makes sense to the narrative.

 

Agreed. Create the backstory for your own reference. It isn't particularly necessary for a reader to know each and every aspect of a character, but if you are ever asked something specific then you will have the answers.

 

I love backstory and I love flashbacks. I also definitely do not want to continue reading this book whose sample I read because 95% of the entire sample was backstory, done in a none too discreet way that's infodump as opposed to exposition. Having said that, this was a traditionally published book; it was also of the romance genre - I think some sort of holiday romance paperback or romance thriller variety. Readers probably pick up this genre in order to read all about every little aspect of the characters' lives. For a crime reader though, probably not so much.

So, I think the answer to your question is: depends on the genre.

And what do you want? Write beautifully, or write in a way that will get you readers? I don't think the two are necessarily always the same, though there are overlaps. The average reader is very, very easy to please when it comes to the quality of writing.

 

If you have a character doing something which seems odd to the reader, the character's backstory can explain why that character behaves in that way. It shouldn't be a resume of mundane events. I'd try to avoid info dumps. It's better to include the relevant information in an interesting or humorous anecdote that one character tells another.

 

The history can be painlessly included in the story if it's delivered to the reader via the POV character/s. Instead of relating such and such happened which caused that, from a history-book perspective, let the POV character tell us. When did she first hear of this fact, and how did the hearing affect her life? Has her attitude changed? Work with this perspective.

I was just in a conversation on FB this morning with a much younger person who wanted to talk about the JFK assassination ...which happened years before he was born. It made me remember exactly where I was when I first heard the news, and how it made me feel. And my disbelief and growing cynicism shortly afterward, when Jack Ruby appeared on the scene and killed Lee Harvey Oswald, before anything could be determined.

I was only 14 years old at the time, but I remember thinking 'what?' Why did some gangster decide to shoot the assassin? And then the gangster died before saying anything much himself? What???

That 'what' has never been answered—and has coloured my view of newsworthy events from then on. The news you get is never the whole thing, is it? It's only the tip of the iceberg, so to speak. Never take it at face value.

If I had been the protagonist of your story, you could have used my perspective to painlessly tell the readers about the JFK assassination. When it happened, what happened afterwards, etc.

 

See, this is where I struggle. Dropping backstory and exposition seamlessly into the story. I find that really hard. Your example is very helpful. Telling a world event through the eyes of a witness, of sorts. I'm trying though. In my current work I've decided that some history of the main character is required, otherwise they've just kind of teleported into the action with no explanation. So I'm trying to do it through dialogue with the other main character. They're sitting down and sharing their stories with each other. But I find writing smoothly flowing dialogue is also tricky. Arghhhh! I don't personally like talking to people at length. It's best avoided So to write a long conversation between two characters seems unnatural to me. If I was one of the characters, I'd be backing out early and avoiding the chat!
Damn, this writing business is hard work :-(

 

Stick with how the backstory makes the character feel in the present. Think about your own backstory. How you feel about what happened to your parents, or some event ...even some event WAY in the past. Unless you're writing an actual history, focusing on the effect certain events have had on your characters is a good way to go. They, like us in our real lives, don't need to know EVERYTHING about an event, do they? I can react emotionally to the fact that my parents got married, without actually being at the wedding. I can discuss the effect of one of their wedding presents on our later life, without reciting all the presents they got and who gave the presents to them. You pick out the bits that matter and filter them through the present-day character. It works a treat.

Something as simple as a young character mentioning that soldiers walk through the streets of her town, and pass under her window every day. She likes to watch them through the upstairs window of their apartment. (You can go into detail about how they are dressed, how they move, even what ordinary people on the street might be doing at the time.) The soldiers often look up as they pass her house, and she waves at them. But her parents remember a time when there were no daily military parades. They say life was better then, back when old King Bertram ruled the country, and the country was peaceful without any soldiers marching past all the time. Her parents never watch the soldiers' parade, the way she does—which puzzles her—but they don't stop her from doing it. Her father says it's actually a good thing that somebody from the family is seen at the window, looking out. That way the soldiers know that the household is loyal to the crown. Loyal to the new young King.

 

True. What I'm finding is a paranoia that as soon as one aspect of a character is mentioned, there needs to be some explanation. Example - I mentioned my main character is an orphan. (She's a teen now, though). So I feel that I need to explain how she was orphaned. Because the reader might be looking for an explanation. In fact, I made her an orphan so that she had no option but to go on the run from something. i.e. no-one to turn to. It was a lazy way of getting her on the road. Like...she has to run okay, there's no one to help. Why? Because she's an orphan okay...no family... so stop asking. And now I'm playing devil's advocate and imaginingg the reader pestering me with "how did she come to be an orphan"... and I should explain it, even though it's really not relevant to the story I want to tell...

I suspect I'm overthinking it.

 

Stick with her. How does she feel about being an orphan? Sad? Resentful? Defensive? Let her think about it. The backstory will emerge. Is there some particular thing she remembers that motivates her now? Try to use your POV character to convey the information the reader needs to know. And while you CAN do it with dialogue, you're right. That can become awkward. Best to do it via internal thoughts and feelings, if you can.

 

I think a great way of delivering back story is via dialogue. Arguments between characters work very well as they tend to be short to the point discussions where characters can reveal their innermost thoughts, even if they really didn't intend to. Anyway, who doesn't like watching a good argument!

 

Then I'd ask if you don't have another way of showing this backstory as opposed to telling it through dialogue. Telling backstory through dialogue is probably one of the clumsiest ways to do backstory - can be done and done well, but I don't prefer it. If it's unnatural to you, except for doing it as an exercise to practice your writing skills, I don't see why you'd do it.

Turning it into an event might be harder but usually, in my experience, it makes the book better. Make the event part of the natural trajectory of your story and weave in bits of inner thought that shows the backstory. The thing is, we don't need to know every detail.

 

Writer needs to know. As for the reader, well - only so much as is directly relevant for the story, and even then only revealed in bits and pieces, over time, as opposed to one big chunk.

 

It's something you the author should know - how did she become an orphan. But no, I don't think you need to include it - it's enough to know she's an orphan depending on the genre. In a crime novel, I would be tempted to put it in one line even if you did reveal how she was orphaned. In a drama meant to explore deep relationships and the like, I would be tempted to have a full flashback scene and really say how it happened. See what I mean?

But one line is often enough. Like your character could see a student with a first class laptop and scrunch up her nose and think, "Another brat living off the bank of mum and dad. They've never known what it's like to go without."

You don't have to go any further than that - in those lines I have encapsulated that this character is bitter and resents people who are not independent, and that she probably came from a poor background. As the novel progresses it wouldn't be hard to include the detail that she has no parents.

Or in a dialogue, for example:

Person A: mum's always on my back. Why don't you choose a better degree, why don't you have a boyfriend yet, don't wear that it makes you look fat. I wish she'd just go away.
MC: Oh stop whining. At least you have her.
Person A: You don't know what it's like.
MC: You're right, I don't.
Person A: I'm so sorry...

Anyway you get the idea. There's no need for an entire scene just to say something.

 

A year or two ago I watched Lindy's video on Hillfolk, an interesting/novel take on tabletop RPG. Its rolling/choice system aside, Hillfolk's character creation begins with the players taking turns in announcing their characters. These announcements, however, involve not only class, name and so on - the most important part is an "existing connection" to each established character. So you'll have someone proclaiming the young Luke Skywalker. Next player enters and announces "Evil villain - actually Luke's father". Then you have the next. "Uncle-figure to Luke who hid him from the evil villain - also the former teacher and friend of the evil villain."

I lifted this over to my background building / worldbuilding where I concentrate on the connection between characters in the background. Inherently, you'll also have certain matters that are not precisely "interactions" between the characters, but oppositions or similarities nevertheless (ideology, birthplace, religion, ...). I've a giant web of characters and I don't allow two to be "unrelated"; I always seek to find a "common ground" or "common encounter" for them.

Though I also understand this is immensely character-centric which does not fit certain writing styles.

 

Varies from character to character. For some characters it's okay if they just appear out of nowhere if their background isn't terribly relevant to what they'll be doing in the story. In some cases the mystery of their past may even be the whole point. Other characters, meanwhile, may have characterizations and arcs that heavily inform their roles. For example, a trauma that affects their actions and decisions, or something they did comes back to haunt them and now they have to deal with it.

I definitely don't think a backstory is necessary, though. Let it come up whenever it makes sense for it to come up.

 

A lot of the time, I'm actually fairly patient with stories that don't tell me everything up front. In your example, knowing that she's an orphan and she has no one to turn to would be enough. I'd expect further details to come up if/when they are relevant.

Also just characterization can tell a lot about a character without it having to be actually told. For example, if excessively distrustful, then I'd expect them to have been in a situation where they can't trust anybody. A little bit can go a long way when it comes to backstory. For your character just a single line of "I've been on the streets since I was twelve" (to just pick a random age) conveys to me a general idea of what their life was like and what baggage this character is carrying in the present.

 

The thing about this approach—not that there's anything wrong with using it at times—is that it limits you. You can ONLY reveal what characters say.

Think of all the times in your own life where you didn't say what you really thought or felt—to the extent that other people around you were not even aware of what you thought. We meet somebody we're attracted to, or somebody we instinctively dislike, we're not likely to reveal our feelings via dialogue right away, are we? If the new person you dislike is your boss, for example. Or the person we're attracted to is forbidden to us in some way.

Keeping thoughts hidden is one of the things we're taught to do at a very early age, if we want to get along in society. Only a very few people always say what they think. (And they make for prickly people AND characters.) However, the bulk of us do temper what we say, with how we think it might be received. And no, this constraint doesn't always 'show' in dialogue. Some folks are very very skilled at hiding their feelings.

I also find it tiresome to read stories where the dialogue is always in the form of some petty argument, just as I find it tiresome to be around people who always want to argue. I don't like watching a good argument at all! My instinct is to escape from that scene as soon as possible—unless the scene is between people I already know well, and the thing they're arguing about is important, and this conflict has been brewing for a while.

Just like the excessive use of 'banter,' I find the excessive use of 'argument' in dialogue wears thin pretty fast. 'Informational' argument and banter soon come across as superficial and annoying. Do I want to read pages and pages of it? No, I don't. So what do I do? I skip it. Or stop reading altogether.

It's fine to use dialogue (and body language) to let the reader know about non-POV characters, though. What does your POV character see and hear? That's how we learn about people in real life, isn't it? We only have access to what other people say, what they do, and the clues they give with their body language. (As well as what they might have done before, in a similar scenario which we know about.)

During the story, we ARE the POV character.

As POV characters, we have access to a lot more than what 'we' say and do—and we probably won't even be aware of our own body language. We think and feel. A lot more than we let on to others. So don't be afraid to use these perspectives with your POV characters. It gives them depth. Don't turn them into talking heads, just because you can.

 

Personally, I like a lot of backstory. It's not necessary every time. I've read books with no bio whatsoever and enjoyed them, but I like knowing how a character developed and how the situation arose. Ironically, my first book involves an MC with no past whatsoever. I found it extra difficult to establish and justify certain traits. Everything had to come through in actions, thought and dialogue.

Some of this question comes down to personal style. Stephen King, for instance, has written several books that involved more flashbacks than current events. Other books of his stop the story at least once a chapter to relate tons of backstory. Granted, some people hate him for this. I'm a fan. I love understanding the psychology of his characters on that basic a level. I know why they do everything they do.

Conversely, I recently read what is now one of my favorite books ever, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, and while there is a bit of backstory for the narrator, we never really learn anything about the MC's life before he appears in the first chapter. If I recall, there's very little backstory if any in Fahrenheit 451 or 1984. In both cases, exposition is held back for effect. The world is practically unrecognizable, and Bradbury and Orwell want to keep it that way. We can surmise some of the events that might have brought the world to this state, but we never know for sure. Ditto to the characters.

 

For me backstory is only relevant when it matters to the plot. If it's important where my character grew up I'll mention it, otherwise I don't bother. I very rarely give any vivid descriptions of my characters appearance either because I think the readers can use their imagination. I tend to think less is more.

I don't even think it's that important to the writer. I've written about character and places that I don't know anything about because their childhood or the history of the setting isn't relevant to the story at all. I don't always give my characters a past problem to deal with, I tend to give them present ones.

Some people like to create a colourful back story for everything in their story and that's fine but they never tend to use any of it, and if it helps them write then that's how they work. I avoid too much planning because I get bogged down in it easily and never more forwards. I don't tend to know my characters birth date, place of birth, parents, siblings or anything unless it's relevant or I use those things to make them feel like a real person, but it's not planned out in detail.

 

Backstories are important, backstories are needed. The question is, what are they for?
Here I see three methods of using stories.

1) Presenting characters ...
"- Who is he?
- You do not know? He is a dangerous man. I ONCE SAW HIM KILL THREE MEN IN A BAR WITH A PENCIL... WITH A F***ING PENCIL."

You suddenly have a description of a very cool character in your head, without needing to describe his height, weight, muscles, accuracy in shooting, cruelty, etc.

2) Explain a certain element. (Features of the character's behavior or his motivation).
A character may, for example, be afraid of heights in story. But this will not be said in plain text. Instead, it will describe some strange behaviors that will be part of the story to confuse the reader. The character will seem strange. Later in the story, the character instead of saying dryly that he has a fear of heights, he can tell a little dramatic story about how he got such fear. (Just an example.)
It's the same with motivation.

Greatly improves the understanding of the characters, what they are doing and why.

3) Deepen the character. Through his secrets and the gradual recognition and disclosure of these secrets.
Create secrets for the character that he keeps in himself and how this character gradually makes peace with his past and makes peace with himself, getting rid of his secrets along the way.

This is used to get an emotional response. Make the reader laugh or cry. Or both.

What are you using backstories for?

 

I like what you've said here. It echoes my belief that backstory is best revealed through a character's perspective on it. The one about the guy killing somebody with a pencil is a good illustration. That information is offered to the reader via a character who actually saw the incident happen, and his reaction tells us a lot.

And yes. What are the backstories for? Good question to answer—as a writer—before you include them. Basically, what does the reader need to learn via these backstories—in order for the story to make sense?

I would be a tad cautious about the 'confuse the reader' bit, though. There is a difference between intriguing the reader (oh, wow, I wonder why THAT happened?) and confusing the reader (WTF is going on here? Did I miss something? Who are these people? Where is this happening? I'm losing the plot.)

If I'm intrigued I'll keep eagerly reading, to solve the mystery. If I'm confused, I'm likely to quit, mid-book, and start reading something else. I've lost faith in the author to deliver the goods.

 

I like backstory for a number of things, but mostly not as a reader. As a writer, it can be necessary for understanding how a character will interact, speak, and act, but not always necessary. I do like creating a distinct backstory though because of what new story elements it can bring to the table. Entirely new elements can be brought to field in a story you are trying to make, to the point that they make a sort of outline for an entirely new story, or lengthen the work you are currently busy on. If you don't let it get to muddled with the world you are already developing, these backstories can enhance the story a lot, and if you let them grow unweildy, sometimes they can take over. That isn't necessarily a bad thing.

But I wouldn't make a backstory too large in a different story though. It removes the reader from the time period the story is taking place and can be jarring or separate, leading to the loss of readers who were interested in the initial story and have been removed from it.

 

You can think of a backstory like adding cereal to milk. You add just enough, it elevates the cereal and leaves a nice, perhaps sweet liquid at the bottom of your bowl. Add too much and after consuming it, you'll feel like falling asleep. (Milk does that to me, haha.)

I agree it's a good writer's tool for exploring the intentions of your character. What becomes the caveat here is how much is warranted for the reader. Not everything needs to be explained, essentially.