Young Writers Society

Hi guys,
Ok So im in the middle of writing this book and I came across a problem that I really need help with. So in this book I have to go back 20 years to kinda give back ground on the main characters mother. Im doing that at the beginning or the second chapter, my question and problem is, Im not sure if Im really taking it back at the right time!!! Does something need to happen before I take it back to sorta cause the flash back? Sorry this is probably very confusing, but I have no idea what to do with it right now. Any tips or suggestions would be greatly appreciated!!!!
Josie

From what I get, you're asking whether you need to have a scene to initiate the flashback (like someone falling asleep or getting unconscious or seeing something that reminds them, or whatever) or if it's fine to just start the chapter with the flashback without any intro, am I right?

If it's so, then the answer is - the latter. You don't need a dramatic intro to a flashback; simply showing it to us at the right moment will work just fine. Beginning of a chapter is probably the best way to put it in that case - you can build the rest of the chapter from it, and make sure it connects - but make sure to make it evident enough that it is in fact a flashback and not just a different POV or something alike. This doesn't necessarily mean putting it in italics (although that's an option too, but it gets a bit icky if it's a long flashback scene), but it does mean somehow signposting the reader early on in the flashback that what they're reading happens way in the past.

That all said, the thing I feel iffy about is putting it in the second chapter. It feels either too soon or too late, IMO, and I think I'd be a bit bothered by it if I found it in a book, even if done well (the only exception being if your chapters are really long).
If it's absolutely necessary and it's the only flashback you're going to have in the entire novel, have you considered making it a prologue? I know some people advise against having them, but I believe that a thought-through prologue can be more effective than a randomly-placed flashback.
If it isn't the only one, however, or if you absolutely can't have it before the first chapter, I'd suggest moving it a bit further. This might be entirely the matter of personal preference, but I think I would feel it as more important and more true if I had more chance to connect to the characters and events in the present before seeing the past weaved in.

Hopefully this answers your questions (and adds some food for thought).

Thank you @AreaAdams, I appreciate you replying to this.

Ok so I guess I should have said this a little more clear but yes and no! First, the flash back isnt really the main characters, Im calling it a flash back but I dont think that is the right term to use. The main character is running away. And then in the second chapter I take the readers BACK 20 years to the main characters mother. And for probably 5 chapters its the mothers story. I guess I could make the first chapter the prologue, I was going to originally do the prologue with the mother, and then have a first chapter with the kids and then back to the mom, but that was getting a little confusing so I just stuck with the first chapter!
So its really just going back in time 20 years. Now I dont exactly give any hints the its the main characters mother until later in the story, is that something I should or shouldnt do? Ive never written a book that moved around in time at all so Im not quite sure how I should do it. Thank you so much for your comments!!!

Oh, I knew what you meant, just I didn't realise you meant for the flashback to be that long! I imagined it more like a page-long scene that then moves back to the present in the same chapter.

Okay, this changes things a bit then, but also raises the inevitable question - why don't you simply start in the past? Is it because you don't want the readers to get the wrong impression about the main character and plot ('cause they might feel like that's happening in this case too), or some other reason?

I would say that the simple, straightforward way might work best here: putting "Twenty years earlier" or the date at the start of the first flashback chapter. It's a quick way of letting your readers know where they're standing and what they're reading about, and usually tends to suggest a long-ish flashback ahead. That's what I'm doing in my novel (which has a lot of moving around in time situations) and so far it works well.

As for whether you should or shouldn't do it in the first place, it's rather simple: if your story really needs it, do it. But be sure that you know where your actual story is starting, and that you won't end up lost in the flashback/past and leave your actual MC hanging.

Perfect, thank you very much! This did help me a ton... I appreciate it.
I kinda want to "hook" the reader right away with the way things start out with the kids, the mothers story is a toad slower and I dont want readers to get bored right in the first page...

That actually opens a whole other can of worms.

Because you're starting with the kids, and then in the second chapter immediately going into the mother's story, readers will think that it's a story about the mother, and that the first chapter and/or blurb are lying to them. As a result, they're pretty likely to put it down, especially if the mother's story is slower or something they aren't interested in as a reader.

It might be better if you spaced out the flashback throughout the novel—the reader doesn't need 100% of the information at the very beginning, and the mother's backstory could be revealed little by little alongside the main story to keep your main story moving. So like half a chapter of backstory, half a chapter of main story—that way your readers don't hold a grudge against you.

If you just cut away from your main story for five chapters, your readers will honestly think the rest of the book is about the mother, and you're likely to lose track of what's going on in the present. I know that a lot of writing is for yourself, but it's a lot of writing to trudge through as a reader, and it's something you'll definitely want to work on in a second draft.

Why do we even need to know the mother's story in the first place? I agree with Ark and Aria— starting with the mother's perspective so soon, for so long, will be absolutely detrimental to the plot. It makes me wonder why we need so much history, and why you haven't built enough logic into the present. If you "need" to know all the backstory information for anything to make sense, then you haven't made the present strong enough to stand on its own. The present needs to be strong enough to stand on its own, regardless of what happened in the past.

And the fact you say it's boring/uninteresting raises red flags, too: everything in the story should be interesting and attention grabbing even if it's not action. Characters should be doing stuff, you should be keeping a certain amount of stakes (the answer to "what happens if this goes wrong?" needs to be something that has repercussions, and big enough ones to care), and you need to have something going on that's generally interesting.

If it's boring, cut it. If it's absolutely required information, build it into the present storyline without relying on a flashback.

Thank you guys! Ark, Aria, Rose. These were really helpful!!!
Ok so now Im thinking I will break the book into two. My main reason for combining the two stories like I did was to have more family history in there so you knew where Wyatt and Elle were coming from so to speak! I definitely see what you mean though about leaving the main characters for so long. As far as the history part of it being boring... :/ might have given the wrong impression there... I just meant that the mothers story is slightly slower. But I do see what you mean! So now... I think what I will do is break it into two books, since Ive already kinda hooked my self on the mothers story as well I think I will make the 1st book in this mini series and then make the childrens book a sort of sequel! Does that sound better?

When I first came up with the idea I also thought it was important to give the mothers and fathers story so that you didnt just hate him right away. or even if you did you could change your mind later when you saw what he went through, but I myself am starting to now hate the father a little so Ive changed my mind on trying to redeem him in any way!

Slow =/= a bad hook. So if you're treating the story has something that's uninteresting, you'll never write it interestingly.

As for using the early story to redeem your characters: understand not all characters are redeemable, and understand you do not need to reveal why they behaved the way they did right away. In fact, it can be better that way, because you learn about things slow and naturally instead of having reasons shoved in where they don't belong.

Fullmetal Alchemist shows a father who left his young family, with the mother dying shortly after and leaving the kids as orphans. You don't even find out anything about their dad until much later in the story, and you don't find out why he left till till the very end. The narrative is told from the eldest son's perspective, primarily, and there's no real point in showing the backstory because there are other things going on in the plot. It's only when the backstory and the reasons why their dad left intersect do you find out what really went on, and therefore the plot feels natural. If you force reasons why into the story too early, it feels very stilted and readers are generally turned away.

That being said, there's another important part about FMA: the protagonist never truly forgives his father, and while his actions are understandable, they are not forgivable (to some). He abandoned the woman he adored and two kids because of his own agenda, and while that agenda was very important, it still did a lot of damage to the kids and really destroyed his relationship with his eldest child. Both sides are perfectly valid.

No matter what you do, some people will never forgive your characters for committing certain acts. And that's just a fact of writing.