When you have details of a protagonist's past, which do you start with first? You have: 1-cutting marks (not done by the protagonist to himself) 2-being sexually abused (by the one who tortured him) 3-a murder that is committed by the protagonist (killed the abuser) Do you choose according to the rigidness of the detail? Because if I picked the most horrible detail, there might not be as interesting details later. What do you think
I think with content like that, the less overt you make your references to the events, the better. I don't mean understate their importance by not mentioning them, but reveal details in a more subtle way than just coming right out and telling everything. So rather than thinking "okay, im gonna talk about this then this then this", just respond to the past as it rears its head in the present, if you know what I mean. If you come right out and say it overtly, it lessens the impact of the events, whereas if you are noticeably reticent about the past, it creates a sense of the pain and repression, as well as increasing the reader's interest in the past (rather than simply telling it all, which has exactly the opposite effect). Try to consider the psychological effect abuse like that would have, and pay attention to that first and foremost, rather than the story.
You start with the story in the now. Elements of the past only come in in connection with what happens during the story present time. If the story doesn't pull up the past naturally, then that past doesn't belong in the story.
Yeah. What he said. If there is critical information that you wish to presentm, the story itself should present the correct time and placement of its introduction. If not ... Yeah. What he said.
