Mistakes We Writers Make: a Blog Response (Take 2) July 18, 2008
Posted by Samantha in About Writing, Responses to Other Blogs.Tags: blog response, mistake, beginning writer, literary agent, kristin nelson, backstory, explanation, telling, lajos egri, background information, integrate
trackback
Agent Nelson strikes again! In her latest blog entry, she speaks about the “opening-chapter-back-story-info-dump” writer mistake. We all know what that is; the name says it all. It’s the writer’s notes and details that a writer thinks his readers need to know in the beginning (or middle or end or a large piece of in-between) in order to understand the character, history, and world—it is the intrusive explanation.
As a reader, I would love to know why a ring needs to be thrown into a volcano or why a magical world worships a boy who lived. But I don’t want, or need, to know all in one go, especially in a boring-no dialogue-actionless-wordy chapter. Why? It may prove uninteresting to the reader and he or she may not absorb what the writer thinks is essential. (After all, if its in the beginning, the readers don’t necessarily know it’s important.) A mass of information may accidently include insignificant details and may drag down the story rather than forward the plot. If it’s somewhere other than the beginning it may result in an unpleasant pause in the story. And it may be dull to write.
Not all fiction turns bad when characters reveal the backstory, however. When it is well-written, as in not just telling, and directs the story, rather than just hang mid-air, we readers can apprieciate it. We can enjoy it.
Personally, I’m not into the whole “history lesson” first. I like my novels to start when, in Lajos Egri’s words, “something is at stake [necessity], when a conflict begins its ascent to a crisis, when a decision, which will precipitate conflict, has been made, or when the character experiences a turning point in life.” Such a beginning gets the story rolling and allows me to discover little informing gems along the way. These gems, making up the backstory, don’t intrude and distract from the main story’s movement.
And I think that may be Ms. Nelson’s point: start out in the best way your story can, even if it means with a backstory or prologue, but don’t let so-called-needed-explanations invade, drag, and distract.
Do you have an opinion on backstories? I think working it in the book is hard, especially when it’s needed in a science-fiction or fantasy world. How do you prefer to integrate it?
You ask a touch question. My opinion on backstory is that you have to be very careful about it. You need to take an approach to it that fits your story. Sometimes this is a traditional flashback (yuck); other times it’s something you made up. Sometimes, you don’t even need backstory because telling the story explains the backstory that didn’t really need to be said (I hope you understand that). Of course, this whole paragraph is IMO.
In response to your comment about the climax: my teacher always taught me that if you bring it on too early, it won’t matter as much to the reader because they won’t understand how it affects the character(s).
Do you agree, disagree or differ? Why?
Thank you for your comment. =) You’re making me really think; and it’s helping me learn.
I think integrating a backstory definitely depends on your story: In a once upon a time fairy tale, the narrator usually reveals background information first. In a page-turning plot thriller, information is disclosed in bits and pieces as the main character discovers it. Some books also use the flashback device, but I do think its hard to pull off. I’ve read many stories where the flashback appeared passively. I find the most “yucky” flashbacks attempts online when writers, either in a fit of laziness or resignation, write FLASHBACK as a transition. Gosh, those annoy me.
But I do agree that integration depends on the story–plot, style, and genre.
Regarding to the climax, I’m not sure if you’re talking about my quoting Lajos Egri. If you are, I must clarify myself: I did not mean to say that I prefer a climax for a beginning; if it were to happen that early then I think I have to agree with your teacher.
Instead, I was referring to Egri’s “Point of Attack” concept. His idea, I interpreted, focused on starting the story at the right time, a time that would logically lead to the climax and to the end. For example: Harry Potter. (Since it is highly publicized, I assume you heard of it at least.) The plot, overly simplified, is about a years-long fight against a bad wizard. Harry Potter, we know, has to be the one to defeat him. So when should the story begin? At the start of Voldemort’s rising? When the prophecy is told? When the Potter parents are killed? When Harry is born? When Voldemort steps into the Potter home?
We can start at any of these points; it all eventually leads to Voldemort’s demise. However, would it be best to begin there? Would it really be relevant, and would it really convey the fact that this is about Harry defeating Voldemort? J.K. Rowling began the series with Dumbledore leaving Harry on his aunt’s stoop, after his parents were killed. The next chapter didn’t continue with his life after. Rowling skipped ten years to a short time before Harry receives his letter.
Egri would call Rowling’s beginning as the Point of Attack. She went straight to a time that would lead logically and quickly to the main storyline. It was, in her story, the best time and way to begin. If she were to start at an earlier time, she risks dragging the storyline and adding more information to make it understandable. Rowling’s Point of Attack is Harry’s abandonment, or rather Dumbledore’s decision to leave him in his aunt’s custody. This sets the rest of story rolling; everything in Harry’s life thereafter comes from this decision. I thought the timing was good; Rowling began it well.
I hope this all made this sense. I’m not sure if I explained Egri’s Point of Attack concept well. If need be, I’ll try to explain it better. But if it does make sense then that is what I meant when I talked about my beginning preference.
(I’m sorry this is so long..)
You make perfect sense with the Point of Attack; I have just never heard of Egri (something I am ashamed to admit being an English/Writing major myself).
Yes, I understand that we are on the same page with climax and Point of Attack.
And it’s okay it was long. I can stand it, as long as it’s a logical/intellectual discussion. I value those.
I didn’t hear about Lajos Egri and his book, The Art of Dramatic Writing, until last year. And, surprisingly, it wasn’t in class.
I found his book while browsing through Borders Books’ writing references. Not only did the title appeal to me, but the first couple of pages drew me in. I like the book and recommend it. It’s a great and informative read. It’s not so much a How-To book, but it enlightens you on important writing aspects while giving you in-depth look at the art of it. I enjoyed it. You might too.
I, too, like intellectual discussions. I especially love discussions about writing.
Thank you again for the comment. =) I’m glad you told me you understood Point of Attack. You might want to try checking out that chapter in the Art of Dramatic Writing.