Previously, on Princess Trek…
So I’m working on book four of a series, and I’m struggling with is how to provide all of the background information. I’ve now got 300,000 words worth of “what came before.” Not all of that information is relevant to the current book, but some of it is. So how do you work that in?
There’s the “Our story so far…” approach, where the author presents a prologue that sums up the previous books. I can see where that might be useful in an ongoing story, like book four of Lord of the Rings or part two of a Star Trek episode.
But personally, I’m not too fond of the Prologue of Summarized Backstory, and my books are a bit more episodic, meaning I don’t think there’s a need to sum up everything that’s come before.
With the goblin books, I went for the silly. Book two had a song to the tune of Sweet Home Alabama, which summed up the events of Goblin Quest. Book three opened with “The Recitation of the Deeds of Jig Dragonslayer,” a quasi-religious goblin-style list of events.
That doesn’t really work for the princess series, which doesn’t have the same kind of goofy humor. So I’ve been taking the approach that I’ll just write the story and include background info when and if it becomes important, just as I would with any other information. Even with a brand new story, there’s always “what came before,” and the author has to work that in.
But how much do I have to tell? Do I assume most everyone has read the first books, and I don’t have to explain — again — where Danielle’s sword came from, or what happened to Charlotte, or who Captain Hephyra is? Or do I assume there will be new readers which each book, meaning it’s important to add a paragraph or two to explain various details to the new readers … even though people who’ve read the rest of the series might roll their eyes and say, “I know this already. Get to the good part!”
The latter is a complaint I’ve seen in a few reviews lately. Not a major criticism, but a minor annoyance, especially for people who picked up all three books and read them at once.
I don’t know. It’s important to me that the books stand alone as much as possible, so that anyone can pick up any of my books and start reading. For that reason, I’m thinking it’s important to include some explanation for things from prior books that come up in this one.
Maybe the trick is to find a new way to present the same old information, so that even people who know the background will be entertained, or at least not bored. Or maybe I shouldn’t worry about explaining, trusting that those gaps won’t throw new readers out of the story. That they’ll either figure it out from context, or if they’re worried, that they’ll go back and get the earlier books.
What do you think? Examples, both good and bad, are more than welcome.
Anita K.
August 10, 2010 @ 11:14 am
As a reader of many a series of various lengths, I would rather have too little backstory than too much late in a series–if I’ve been reading the whole thing, I don’t get bored or feel like I’m being told that I’m stupid that way; if I haven’t read what came before I am aware that I’m not getting the full story and if I like the writing I will go back to fill in. As long as it’s pretty obvious that the book is part of a series, and somewhere in the book is a list of the other books and their order in the series, I’m set. (Of course, I usually won’t pick up a series in the middle; if I like the looks I will usually hunt down book one and start there).
Basically I think backstory should be limited to “what is essential to understand this story.” So in your example above, if it is important to understanding the action that we know were Danielle’s sword came from, more backstory is needed; if only partial knowledge is needed, I would leave it at that. If all we need to know is that she has a sword, fine; past readers will get the import of its history and newcomers probably don’t need it. If we need to know that it’s magic and won’t cut her, or that it’s made of glass, a few more words of explanation might help. If we really need to understand its source to understand the action/psychology of the moment/whatever, then yet more explanation is in order.
I have read books that overexplain, and I always felt cheated out of my time (and money if I bought the book) because I was essentially reading the same book twice. On the other hand, in my youth I once picked up what I later figured out was volume two of a single story, and I was entirely baffled. Of course, I still read the whole thing and would still love to read the first volume if it could be found, whereas I usually give up on books that overexplain.
(I am rather partial to synopses because I can skip them if I want or read them if I need to!)
Tweets that mention Jim C. Hines » Previously, on Princess Trek… -- Topsy.com
August 10, 2010 @ 11:54 am
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Lisa Shearin, Jim C. Hines. Jim C. Hines said: New Post: Previously, on Princess Trek… http://bit.ly/cDmK2k […]
zvi
August 10, 2010 @ 12:28 pm
I have to agree completely with Anita K. I think the level of need to know is a lot lower than many pro authors assume. One of my favorite authors, just for how she (doesn’t) include backstory, is Bujold. She goes so far that, if you need to know the emotional resonance of a connection or memory or what have you, but the actual substance of the action of the memory is unimportant, she will refer to the fact of the memory and describe the protagonist’s reaction, but she doesn’t tell you what happened.
For instance, her protagonist Miles Vorkosigan has a (nearly feudal) sense of responsibility for others. Sometimes, a later text will refer back to a time when his action led to the death or injury of someone to whom he felt that responsibility, but if the actual incident has no bearing on the current plot, she will reference that, for instance, Bothari died, without saying who killed Bothari, why they killed him, and how Miles contributed to that death. All the audience needs to know for the novel in progress is that Miles has a highly developed sense of responsibility and has sometimes failed in that duty.
Jeff Linder
August 10, 2010 @ 1:03 pm
Personally, I’m partial to the good old Dramatis Personae or other index at the back of a book. Call it an FAQ if you like. It’s not intrusive to the plot, but there as a quick reference, and can even point people back to the other books in the series…
I find this especially useful when there is a long time gap between releases..
Bill Pearson
August 10, 2010 @ 1:04 pm
I have to agree with Anita K. that too much back story can really kill the pace of a book. I do like a little description, but only what is needed. If Danielle is cutting apples with her sword, you probably could mention it is magical and glass, but I am not sure the repair in it or the fact it came from her mother would be relevant…
For me it is mostly an issue of repeated text. There are a few authors I swear must write with cut and paste for description text. Evanovich seems to have that issue in Stephanie Plum novels when any of her characters enter the stage for the first time in the novel, though I have seen worse from some hard fantasy novels. If you find that there is only one way to describe someone, and it never changes, then it really speaks to underlying issues in the novels. After all few people survive their home being repeatedly blown up and always put it back in exactly the same way. After the second molotov cocktail I would probably install plexiglass or something more shatter resistant on my windows.
So far I have not seen this out of your series. Each of the characters change through the series so their descriptions are not the same from novel to novel. There is also the fact some time passes between the novels so you are not jumping back into the story just minutes or hours after the last story.
The person who I think does these transitions extremely well is Terry Pratchett in his YA series. There is a synopsis chapter at the front told through the eyes of the character (so it is always a little different) and then we are onto the plot. Little of the previous stories is mentioned, and when it is there is almost always a personal viewpoint on the events.
Worst come to worst you will just need to write longer series so you can skip all the back story in your novels and release a series companion…. make all those story notes do double duty! 🙂
liz
August 10, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
I just started Red Hood, and actually specifically thought that you handled the back story rather well. You described what Danielle was wearing and how her sword bumped against her thigh as she walked, and that feeling made her think of her mother. Subtlety is the key; I think most readers won’t care that they are reading the same info twice. Partially because they expect it to some extent, and partially because it isn’t blatantly thrown at them. I know this is true for me. Good luck 🙂
Cy
August 10, 2010 @ 2:04 pm
Definitely don’t worry about the back story. The first fantasy book I ever read (I didn’t even know such a genre existed at the time) was book 4 (yes, FOUR) of David Eddings’s Belgariad series. Not only was it the penultimate book in the series (you can imagine how much “came before” there was), chapter 1 friggin’ started in the middle of a chase. The last book had apparently ended on a cliffhanger and the heroes were now running for their lives to escape a crumbling castle after successfully stealing this mysterious orb (and a random, mysterious child, while we’re at it).
So all these names were being thrown about, people were arguing about whether or not to bring along this kid, other people were freaking out about the orb, etc, etc, and I guess I still found it worth going along with the stuff I didn’t know because the current action was interesting enough. Anyway, as soon as they got out of the castle, their leader paused to regroup and filled his merry band (and the reader) in on what the mission hereafter would be (i.e. how to escape back to the west), now that their original mission of stealing the orb was accomplished. So since I was at “ground zero,” so to speak, about their current mission, I could focus on the events going forward and enjoy the book even without knowing what came before.
Anyway, the truly relevant stuff (i.e. we stole this orb to return it to a certain lost king who can defeat the bad guy using it) came up naturally over the course of the book. In fact, not knowing all the details about certain, juicy-sounding past events that were mentioned in passing gave me a little extra enjoyment imagining what must have happened. 😀 I guess in the same way movies like “Memento” keep you entertained and intrigued by *not* giving you certain info, sometimes the not-filling-us-in can work in your favor. 😉
Jim C. Hines
August 10, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
I can see that helping a lot with books that include a large cast. Marie Brennan does this with her Onyx Court series. I don’t know that the princess books have enough characters to need it, though.
Jim C. Hines
August 10, 2010 @ 2:29 pm
Thanks! I think part of what I need to work on is *keeping* it quick and subtle.
Jim C. Hines
August 10, 2010 @ 2:30 pm
I agree that you don’t need to rehash everything that’s come before, and I try to just go for “What do you need to know that’s relevant to *this* story.” On the other hand, it’s very possible I’m overestimating what’s important to know, like zvi says below…
Steve - Kestrel's Aerie
August 10, 2010 @ 2:48 pm
The one series of which I read everything is Anne McCafferey’s Dragonriders of Pern. (And of course, newer books are written by her son Todd.) Each of the novels has a short prologue—a page or two, or three—that describes how the original colonists came to Pern, unaware of the Red Star’s menace; how they adapted local fauna into the massive dragons that fight Thread; and so on. Throughout each book, but only as needed, there may be another reference to the past.
I think you could do something similar for the Princess Novels, without too much difficulty, and without going very deeply into the plot of each one. But figure it out quickly, because I’m about to start reading Red Hood’s Revenge!
Steve Lewis
August 10, 2010 @ 11:28 pm
I’ve heard other authors say that the way they get around this is by pretending that the other books in the series don’t exist and then just revealing information like they would anything else that was back story (for instance, mentioning the death of a certain heroine’s glass maker father), and leaving it at that. That way there are no spoilers if they happen to pick up a book later in the series.
Also, these kind of references, ususally, make me want to go back and read previous books in a series to get more detail. Obviously, that’s only if it’s handled well. For what it’s worth Jim, I think that you did a good job in the Goblin books of referencing the backstory without slowing the pace, so I see no reason that doing so for the Princess books should be a problem.
Jim C. Hines
August 11, 2010 @ 8:09 am
Heh. At this point, I don’t think I want to introduce any structural changes into book four, but I’m keeping these suggestions in mind for the next series.
Thanks! And I hope you enjoy Red Hood!
Jim C. Hines
August 11, 2010 @ 8:11 am
That’s the approach I’ve tried to take so far, approaching each book like a new story and introducing only the backstory that becomes relevant to the current book. It worked a little better with the goblin books, but with the princess series, there are certain elements that come up throughout the series and will be resolved in #4, so I don’t think there’s any way to avoid at least some spoilers. Hopefully nothing too major.
Your comment reminds me of something I hear a lot about writing: you can get away with just about anything, as long as you do it well.
Thanks!
Anita K.
August 11, 2010 @ 9:44 am
Oh, I definitely agree with you on Bujold. She is exactly who I had in mind as the perfect balance as well.
Novelnaut » Blog Archive » A Wild Light
August 11, 2010 @ 4:04 pm
[…] also incredibly difficult.
Jeff Linder
August 11, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
It doesn’t have to be that big.. Or even in the book.. Put a link in the book to a page on your site you can update as questions come in (and not incidentally link to this blog 🙂 )