The back-story - strictly for viewers?
I’m fairly sure that if I were writing a TV detective series the back-story would be de rigueur. Not only must the cop catch all the crooks, but he or she must cop off, too (whether it be with their partner in solving crime, the victim they have risked life and limb to save, or even the master criminal with whom they have traded blows). And it will probably end in tears.
But for books – I’m not so sure.
There are various pitfalls of the back-story, not least the risk that it becomes the front-story. Since whodunits don’t really work on TV, there has to be some easy underlying drama to sustain the viewer’s interest. Lazing on the sofa, it soon becomes all-consuming.
Nonetheless, I constantly anguish over how much back-story there should be in my books. Then I lean for support and reassurance on the great Agatha Christie. For her, ‘The Mystery’ was pre-eminent, all else – despite the immense fame of her detectives – was subsidiary.
Frankly I’m quite entertained by how little I know about Hercule Poirot. One can go through an entire novel and learn no more than he has a massive ego, smokes tiny cigarettes and harbours a penchant for syrop de cassis.
And even Ms Christie perhaps regretted giving him what little back-story she did.
Of course, she can’t have known when she wrote the first ‘Poirot’ in 1920 that she would call upon his services for the next 55 years – but it was a lack of foresight which had those poor little grey cells toiling well into their nineties!
But for books – I’m not so sure.
There are various pitfalls of the back-story, not least the risk that it becomes the front-story. Since whodunits don’t really work on TV, there has to be some easy underlying drama to sustain the viewer’s interest. Lazing on the sofa, it soon becomes all-consuming.
Nonetheless, I constantly anguish over how much back-story there should be in my books. Then I lean for support and reassurance on the great Agatha Christie. For her, ‘The Mystery’ was pre-eminent, all else – despite the immense fame of her detectives – was subsidiary.
Frankly I’m quite entertained by how little I know about Hercule Poirot. One can go through an entire novel and learn no more than he has a massive ego, smokes tiny cigarettes and harbours a penchant for syrop de cassis.
And even Ms Christie perhaps regretted giving him what little back-story she did.
Of course, she can’t have known when she wrote the first ‘Poirot’ in 1920 that she would call upon his services for the next 55 years – but it was a lack of foresight which had those poor little grey cells toiling well into their nineties!
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
[deleted user]
(last edited Jul 25, 2016 09:44AM)
(new)
Jul 25, 2016 09:42AM
I'm reading the Poirot series now. Your books, though modern and different, do follow the same format. With both Poirot and Skelgill, the clues are there, the herrings are crimson, and the culprit unknown until the last chapter. Each protagonist has his charms and quirks, but that's what make them real to a reader. I especially approve of the love interest angle. Poirot appreciates a lovely feminine figure but is not swayed by her wiles. She remains a suspect. Oft times, Skelgill himself becomes the alibi for his female suspect. He is indeed more drawn to a beauty and follows through yet without the needless details. With each novel, I'm forming a more well-rounded picture of Skelgill. He has become a man I would share a sandwich or six with. I will remember to eat beforehand. Ha ha. Note: I want to meet his mother. She sounds like a real humdinger.
reply
|
flag
I've read some of yours and lots of Poirot's stories, among others. Right now I'm reading Gailbrath's (aka J.K. Rowling) "Career of Evil" and there again, the detective backstory comes strongly here and there and it's perfect. I confess that the backstory is always something exciting when well done but it can backfire, I think. I've read recently a crime novel by a new author and I considered the backstory pretensious and overly done. And I must confess I have already imagined dozens of different reasons why Poirot is often so suspicious of women and respectful at the same time. It's intriguing and yet somehow conforting.
