Origin tale, or jump in hip-deep?

Start with him established in his job. The rest is backstory--far more interesting if you've got us guessing about it, because maybe the next page'll answer some questions.

You may need the origin story if you don't have an excellent handle on your character and/or the town. I'd think of two stories and have one be the origin and the other be in media res.

The reason origin tales do not necessarily sell well is because the writer doesn't yet have a handle on the characters, and the synthesis is uneasy. Creating that synthesis is hard work, and many series really find readers around book two or three.

Even if you never sell your origin tale, it will give you enough information to make a really good "second" book in your series, which may actually end up being the "first" one simply because it sells. Then one day when you need a book quick and you're already working on books in two other series, you can drag out the origin draft and rewrite it and submit it in.

Origin tales aren't necessarily backstory. They may simply be "X came to this town, then stayed", which can have quite a bit of incident if it's not treated as backstory, but treated as the current story.

As a reference point in the same genre, Sherlock Holmes. A Study in Scarlet did not cut the mustard initially because a) Watson's role as narrator/POV had not yet been settled, b) the interaction between Watson and Holmes has not yet gelled. But all the little stories happened once Doyle knew more about Holmes and Watson and what worked (and didn't) in Study. After that, everything was gravy and sold very, very well. Sales for Study only picked up long after the stories in Strand magazine became hot.

It's always helpful to have the story in motion from the beginning. So I'd suggest have him doing his job. You can always have him reminiscing (sp?) about how he got the job in the first place.

agreed, start him off in the job. as far as him reminescing (sp), i'd keep that to a minimum as apparently you're thinking of a series here and will likely want to use part of his past for current events. if you lay all the past out, it'd be harder to refer back to if you need the details to be different.

personally, i wouldn't consider a 'prequel' for a series as i'd want to reserve the past to be meted out during the regular novels when you need it. like i said, i wouldn't want to be locked into something if i didn't know what the future had in store. once several are done and the character is a success, then maybe you can cull together all those pieces of the past for a new adventure in a 'prequel' fashion. i don't like the idea as his backstory used as a first sequel, though i can certainly understand the temptation.

were it a series i had in mind (bear in mind i don't tend to think in terms of series), i'd probably have a few details about his past defined for that particular story, then, thinking ahead of doing a backstory novel, i'd add some vague details in there. for example, a college girlfriend whose name is mentioned often enough and seems to dredge up some amount of angst, yet whose fate is never defined. i would even take it a step further and perhaps have the MC have to deal with her father, a DA or recruiter for the texas rangers (who always snuffs his chances at joining), and have the two have a lot of anger and aninimity (sp ~ sorry, it's early) towards. in other words, have a broad backstory in mind, but don't establish it so much that it hinders the current stories; but, at the same time, hint at certain past events so that you can have a solid 'prequel' that ties the series together nicely.

how would i do it? i'd write about seven highly successful novels (because i rule), do a 'prequel' (maybe incorporating the backstory into a current mystery, not sure), then reveal that jenny isn't dead after all, but the MC had made a terrible, terrible mistake he can't shake. jenny moved on, porked out a couple of brats, and claims to be happy with her jerk-off husband who probably is in a spot of trouble, thus re-uniting the lost lovers. and then i'd have enough fodder for another series as the MC attempts to redeem himself in her eyes. the 'prequel' would serve as just a kick-off to more books. hm, i'm thinking the MC made such a bad decision that it cost his g/f her sister's life. yeah, i like that ~ it also gives the MC a lot of motivation for his life of kicking bad guys' asses the way he does and why he utterly freezes up in hostage situations... or something. probably pretty cliche, lol.

but, yeah, the lonely cop with a mysterious past is pretty standard fare, imo (at least in movies: i assume it's pretty standard in fiction, too). but, it's also something that gets published time and time again (i forget the one i'd read, but the woman's name was 'winter,' which i thought was pretty lame).

anyhoo, i'd start off with him already settled. good luck.

For me, the way a character deals with a new situation is always very interesting. It's a way for us to see their strengths and weaknesses in real situations.

If you start with him already set in his role, then you have a lot of backstory you will have to weave into the story. If you start with him coming to town, there is no backstory at all (except maybe his previous life as a US Marshall), it is all unfolding as you write. To me, that is the more interesting way to start.

An example from my favorite author, Patrick O'Brian. The first novel, Master & Commander, of his twenty-book Aubrey/Maturin series begins with Jack Aubrey as a half-pay lieutenant on shore with no ship, and Stephen Maturin as a penniless physician. This book is such a masterpiece, and is so gripping, because we grow with these two characters from their very first meeting. We feel Jack's joy when he gets his first acting commission (as Master and Commander of the sloop Sophie), and we get to experience the wonder's of shipboard life through Maturin, who joins Jack as the surgeon aboard his ship. Later books start with them at sea in one ship or another, but there is something magical in that very first experience, the transformation into a ship's captain, the way he looks at everything differently. Just wonderful!


Personally, I'm be more intrigued by the story of your MC coming to town and how he deals with it all. If you pull it off, you will have built a character that people will love and remember.

It sounds like an interesting premiss.

I vote for Origin tale.

It can go either way. Which story are you really writing, the origin of this character or the current case? If the book is really about the case, start there.

On the other hand, in the first draft you can go ahead and write the origin part. If your first beta readers complain that the story doesn;'t get going until, say, chapter three, you can fix it then, but you will have this guys background firmly in mind.

Thing is, mysteries are always mainly about the case. However, you must weave character story into it; not just that of the suspects, but that of the detectives. Rex Stout did this very well, and that's part of what gave the Nero Wolfe series character. Doyle had to do this as well, otherwise Holmes would never have become a household word. It wasn't all personality, it was details too.

The detective stories that hit mainstream and surpass genre are the ones that embrace the story of the detective on equal terms with the case.

So the origin story would never be strictly about his origin, or strictly about the case, but ideally about both, and intertwining the two.

I second what Ava said.

That's really hard to tell from the outside. But the way you put it, I don't think an origin tale would be like dumping backstory in. It sounds like we could join him coming to the strange town, being intrigued by it, discovering, getting accustomed. Maybe we could build more empathy with him.

But it all depends on the tone you want the story to have. The middle-of-the-action thing I've seen in dynamic stories, where there's an urgent plot that grabs the reader's attention, and the backstory unravels throughout the story (more or less masterfully scattered in the narrative), and also when the character has a strong voice which doesn't really depend on his evolution in time. It also depends on what your focus on the story is: is it his reaction to the new setting, is it how his position affects him, is his coming there important in any way - or does the real plot start with him there, does he get involved in a mystery or whatever only after he has become accustomed to the things? I ask this because it sounds as if the origin tale would make us follow him closely in new circumstances, the importance of which only you can decide.

My advice is that you think of the two versions and decide which one you want to write the most. Put the worries aside for a moment - do you want to write about the guy inheriting the position or do you ache to jump in already? Get it rolling, and the final decision can be taken in rewrites. By the end of the first draft you'll have a much clearer idea of what it's about and what works best as an opening. Writing his backstory could help you know your MC even if you end up cutting it. Nothing's fixed, just write what you'd most like to - the advice we can give you is just a shot in the dark compared to your feelings (and mine is even more so ). Good luck!

If you're writing a mystery, my vote is to have him already firmly set in his role with just a passing line or two about being a retired US Marshal. The reader is then ready for him to take on the role of private eye from that unique perspective. Perhaps it creates difficulties because he'd do his job this way if he was still a Marshal but now doesn't have the resources he once had. This could frustrate him, make him more creative in getting the job done etc. Perhaps it opens up avenues he wasn't able to use as a government-employed official so can cut corners and such. You could have a lot of fun with this change in jobs with it's inherent positives and negatives.
Linnea

One version is how he came to be in the town and how he came to inherit his mantle, and the other version has him already firmly set in his role.

Click to expand...

The story starts where the story starts. You seem to me to be describing two somewhat different stories, either of which could work. Your problem with the "origin" story is going to be avoiding an info-dump, but if you can do that and engage the reader, there's no inherent reason not to write it that way.

caw

Whatever works. But I have to say that probably no one ever had a bigger "orogin" backstory than Tolkein--but even he started off in present action.

blacbird said:

The story starts where the story starts. You seem to me to be describing two somewhat different stories, either of which could work. Your problem with the "origin" story is going to be avoiding an info-dump, but if you can do that and engage the reader, there's no inherent reason not to write it that way.

caw

Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly. Where does this story start? And if you have two stories, so be it. Make sure they're stand alone and *poof* you've got a series started.