A Drizzle of Back-Story goes a long way

My post on Monday started the juices flowing in my brain cells. How do authors inject back-story into a story without stopping the flow and pace of the scene?

As writers, we all know that beginners tend to write their back-story as the first chapter. *raises hand* {guilty!} But the more stories you write the more you learn to leave off the page.

Yes, back-story develops the character of the story. And yes, you need to know your character's back-story, but for the most part the reader doesn't need ALL this information, maybe only 1-2% of this. And the reader definitely doesn't need it right at the beginning of the story.

Tangent #1: It's just like research. The writer spends hours upon hours of learning XXX, but only uses the information to add color to the story. Was the research needed? Yes. But did the reader need to know everything the writer does about XXX? Uh, sorry, but NO.

Tangent #2 warning: Years ago, I sat on a Federal jury involving racial discrimination. Tangent on the tangent, tangent #2b: In Oklahoma, when you get called to Federal jury duty you are 'on call' for four weeks. Every Friday night you call in to see if you've been selected in their jury lottery. Two out of four weeks, I WON! Oh, wait. I don't really think that's 'winning'. What really sucked about it was I worked the 11-7 shift in a hospital--and I worked weekends that month. Major suckage having to work Sunday night and show up down-freakin'-town for jury duty on Monday morning.
Back to my original tangent #2: The racial discrimination case took place at a rebar factory. Those pieces of thick steel posts they lay in cement to strengthen it. Yeah, you know what I mean. I had to sit through hours upon hours of them detailing how to make rebar. Don't know WHY they went into so much detail, but it sure put me to sleep. This falls in the TMI (too much information) category.

Much like back-story. So how do you weave in the important information?

In the story I showcased on Monday took place in the 1700's and the wife of a Calvary officer was telling him how to ride his horse. 1) this didn't make sense, 2) why would a wife be telling him how to ride his own horse, 3) as a reader this REALLY pulled me out of the story.

I discovered later that this female had the back-story to pull off this scene (raised on a stud farm), but the reader was missing a vital part of the back-story. I didn't know this history, so the scene didn't make sense, and I vocalized it in my judging comments.

My suggestion was to add a sentence in the female's POV. Of course, this is just an example and might or might not work for the story, but it is a way of showing enough back-story without slowing the forward momentum. Something like this:
Rage flowed over her as her husband abused her deceased Papa's prized stud.
1) this sentence shows her closeness to her father by calling him Papa, plus you know he's dead
2) Papa raised horses. I think the term stud is a little more detailed versus the term stallion
3) Husband is bad man. Anyone who abuses animals should die, plus he probably abuses the humans in the family.
4) She reacts with rage, which ultimately ends up with her voicing her opinion. This could have dire consequences (a possible beating) and she can't run away (Papa's dead)

This example shows the reader back-story without the detail of boring back-story. The reader files it in their subconscious and when the character acts out, then it makes sense.

It just goes to show that every word does count. Writers need to be aware how they weave back-story into the novel without jarring the reader.

Write on!