# How do you perfer your fantasy epic start: with action or backstory?



## michaelwebermw (Sep 24, 2013)

There are quite a few epic fantasy novels out there these days. I find myself wondering more and more about how the start of each of these books shapes my overall opinion of the story. I cannot decide if I prefer to read about the history of the world first or just jump right into the action.

I think I enjoy getting the back story just as much as anyone. Discovery is one of the greatest parts about living. When the world is referred to as the "known world", it leaves the idea that there is still something left to discover and I find that enticing. So when an author offers up a the creation and history of their story it can be very exciting. However, in some cases this can lead to the downfall for me for the book even though they might actually possess a good story. It is like the story of Romeo and Juliet. It has been done a thousand times but sometimes a certain rendition can be capturing. In this case jumping straight into the action could be the safest bet. But when you are trying to create a world for a reader to get immersed in, if you jump straight into a story with no background, a reader can find themselves lost.

So I will put the question to the greater community of readers at large here on Amazon.

How do you prefer your story to start: Right into the action, or get the back story?


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

I prefer to start with action, then discover the backstory as I read along, bit by bit. And I don't mind feeling lost at first -- some of the greatest fantasy stories (such as _Nine Princes in Amber_) start with you feeling utterly lost. You're dumped right into an ongoing story, have no idea what's going on, and have to keep reading to find out; when done right, it can be very effective.


----------



## Saffron (May 22, 2013)

I like the two woven together. I like may be a page or two of action, but then through inner monologue or dialogue or observation - the sentences woven in to reveal the problem at hand.  I like it best when a story starts with the proposition of the problem at hand, or the mystery to be solved, and it's fine to get chunks of back story sandwiched in as the problem is revealed. I don't like infodumps, but then nobody does.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

Woven together works well for me.  Action works.  

I won't read backstory starts anymore.  I know it's generally more acceptable in fantasy, especially epic fantasy, but my friend insists I'm an action junkie.  It could be true.  All I know is that if the backstory goes on for more than two paragraphs, it probably gets set aside.  This applies to mysteries as well.  I don't like infodumps anywhere in the story, but at the start?  Usually a deal breaker for me.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

The only book that I felt reading some of the backstory first before any action took place really worked (for me anyway) was *The Lord of the Rings * with all of the introductory info about Hobbits and Hobbiton, which was only a small part of the big picture. And that was actually necessary since Hobbits were Tolkien's invention and the reader needs to know what they are and how they live. I'm grateful he left the REST of the backstory about the Ring and the Elves and Numenor and Rohan and Gondor and Moria and the Nine Kings, etc., to be dispersed through the remainder of the book or Bilbo wouldn't have left the Shire until a third of the way through Fellowship of the Ring. In my opinion Tolkien showed genius by just dumping most of his backstory into the Appendices instead of slowing down the action by telling the reader the full history of every character or culture that he introduced. We don't even find out about Aragorn and Arwen until she shows up to marry him!

I prefer to dive into the actual story to find out if it is one that will engage me and get clued in on the history later when it becomes essential.


----------



## NogDog (May 1, 2009)

Don't forget option 3: neither back-story nor action. Sometimes just a quiet foreboding can work well, too, building up eventually to action, with back-story interleaved as needed (and hopefully no more than what is truly needed).


----------



## Kathelm (Sep 27, 2010)

I think starting with action is preferable, but I need the action to be demonstrating aspects of the world-building.  If the backstory/worldbuilding isn't being addressed within the first few chapters, I'm likely to lose interest.


----------



## TWErvin2 (Aug 7, 2010)

Start with story, not backstory (It doesn't have to be action).
Weave backstory into the storyline as needed.


----------



## michaelwebermw (Sep 24, 2013)

I am very glad to get some feedback on this subject. 

I would like to take a side step here and go back to Imroth12's comment about how Tolkien separated his lore from his book. Looking at current epic fantasy books out there, how useful do you think this technique is? Do you think it was detrimental to more current books if this concept was used more widely? Has any of the author's here considered doing such a project for their book series?

mike


----------



## Guest (Sep 29, 2013)

I think you've got to introduce the world your story's taking place in, reference the past in conversation and observations, and make sure that you at least hint action's possible.  

I made the mistake of getting too slow a start on my fantasy novel.  Half the first book is taken up by buildup, and I think that's turned a lot of people away.  When I was reading over Book 2 recently it felt much more like an action story that had good cliffhanger endings.  

Well, live and learn.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

michaelwebermw said:


> I am very glad to get some feedback on this subject.
> 
> I would like to take a side step here and go back to Imroth12's comment about how Tolkien separated his lore from his book. Looking at current epic fantasy books out there, how useful do you think this technique is? Do you think it was detrimental to more current books if this concept was used more widely? Has any of the author's here considered doing such a project for their book series?
> 
> mike


I think what worked for Tolkein won't work for many authors. I read a lot and older books were written in a different style. They are often longer and more detailed in a different way that a lot of today's fiction. I think older fantasy got the "epic" attached to it because of the style. I haven't looked up numbers recently but it wouldn't surprise me if epic fantasy sells a bit less now than 10 and 20 years ago as a category. Because of HP, I could be wrong though. I tend to read less of it for the simple reason that I have less time and I'm not as inclined to read series as I once was. The fantasy I read now tends to be less epic and more compact story in a single book.

So if I see a "World of Time" series, I don't even pick it up to start it. Not interested in that kind of time requirement. There is, however, an audience for it. So the key is to know what audience you are writing for and pick a technique that you think will work for that audience, always keeping in mind that the largest audience is women (book buyers are women by a large percentage). That does not mean you have to write for women, but it means that keeping the stat in mind will help set your own expectations for a particular style of book. And where and how it can be marketed.

As a reader, I am in certain groups because I like the style of books talked about and chosen in the group. I follow all kinds of groups but will find I'm not participating in the ones that veer to far from my favorite current books. That's not to say I didn't love Tolkien. I did. But I'm not going to re-read it...


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

michaelwebermw said:


> I am very glad to get some feedback on this subject.
> 
> I would like to take a side step here and go back to Imroth12's comment about how Tolkien separated his lore from his book. Looking at current epic fantasy books out there, how useful do you think this technique is? Do you think it was detrimental to more current books if this concept was used more widely? Has any of the author's here considered doing such a project for their book series?
> 
> mike


For the sake of clarity in this discussion, you might want to look again at what I said regarding Tolkien and his lore. I mentioned that he dispersed _some _ of it throughout the story but left MOST of it in the Appendices. Here is my quote: _"I'm grateful he left the REST of the backstory about the Ring and the Elves and Numenor and Rohan and Gondor and Moria and the Nine Kings, etc., to be dispersed through the remainder of the book or Bilbo wouldn't have left the Shire until a third of the way through Fellowship of the Ring. In my opinion Tolkien showed genius by just dumping most of his backstory into the Appendices instead of slowing down the action by telling the reader the full history of every character or culture that he introduced."_

In the Silmarillion, the whole War of the Ring that takes 3 volumes to tell only takes up a paragraph or two in the history of Middle Earth. That's because Tolkien's worldbuilding was massive and he had a backstory for each character, a lot of which he left out of the main story but was told in full in the Appendices. In the case of LOTR, all of that backstory would have stopped the momentum of the action entirely.


----------



## michaelwebermw (Sep 24, 2013)

lmroth12 said:


> For the sake of clarity in this discussion, you might want to look again at what I said regarding Tolkien and his lore. I mentioned that he dispersed _some _ of it throughout the story but left MOST of it in the Appendices. Here is my quote: _"I'm grateful he left the REST of the backstory about the Ring and the Elves and Numenor and Rohan and Gondor and Moria and the Nine Kings, etc., to be dispersed through the remainder of the book or Bilbo wouldn't have left the Shire until a third of the way through Fellowship of the Ring. In my opinion Tolkien showed genius by just dumping most of his backstory into the Appendices instead of slowing down the action by telling the reader the full history of every character or culture that he introduced."_
> 
> In the Silmarillion, the whole War of the Ring that takes 3 volumes to tell only takes up a paragraph or two in the history of Middle Earth. That's because Tolkien's worldbuilding was massive and he had a backstory for each character, a lot of which he left out of the main story but was told in full in the Appendices. In the case of LOTR, all of that backstory would have stopped the momentum of the action entirely.


I did not mean to misquote you or anything. The message just sparked a question that I do not think that I properly conveyed. Although I am not as heavy a reader as most, I cannot say I have come across many other authors who did what Tolkien did by writing appendices and I was wondering who else has attempted such a feat and whether or not it worked out for them.


----------



## lmroth12 (Nov 15, 2012)

michaelwebermw said:


> I did not mean to misquote you or anything. The message just sparked a question that I do not think that I properly conveyed. Although I am not as heavy a reader as most, I cannot say I have come across many other authors who did what Tolkien did by writing appendices and I was wondering who else has attempted such a feat and whether or not it worked out for them.


I am sure you did not intend to misquote me, but I think your comment that Tolkien separated his lore from his fiction without mentioning my remark that he also dispersed SOME of his backstory throughout the narration kind of confused people as it gave the impression that all of the missing information was just located in the appendices. And Tolkien was unique; he spent 50 years of his life creating just ONE fictional world. Most authors don't do that, as they move on to other projects. In his particular case, it would have been disastrous to the work to tell every detail of Middle Earth's history within the story itself and would have brought it to a grinding halt.


----------



## David N. Alderman (Jan 15, 2011)

Personally, I enjoy when the two are woven together. I love reading about the back story of a place, but I also want some action mixed in with it, otherwise my interest begins to wane. A well-written novel will have a balance of the two, and both will compliment one another.


----------



## Zackery Arbela (Jan 31, 2011)

Sometimes a mixture of both helps...a backstory with action. The prologue for "The Eye of the World" is a good example of this.


----------



## The Fussy Librarian (May 3, 2011)

I prefer action that's able to give me a taste of the backstory.

I need to get that dose of action at the beginning so I know that the author is going to deliver that in the rest of the novel. Then I'm okay with learning about backstory and history and all of that. When it comes at the start it just feels like I'm sitting down for a lecture and that's not as fun. That's just my two cents. Others may disagree.


----------



## MariaESchneider (Aug 1, 2009)

alexadena said:


> I prefer action that's able to give me a taste of the backstory.
> 
> I need to get that dose of action at the beginning so I know that the author is going to deliver that in the rest of the novel. Then I'm okay with learning about backstory and history and all of that. When it comes at the start it just feels like I'm sitting down for a lecture and that's not as fun. That's just my two cents. Others may disagree.


This. I want to know the author is going to deliver!


----------



## scottmarlowe (Apr 22, 2010)

Action, first. Background info, later and in small amounts.

Of course, by "action", I don't mean throw me right into the middle of a battle. That's fine some of the time, but just having *something* happening works for me. Fill me in on the rest as the story progresses.

If I start reading something that starts off with the "thousands of years of history" thing, I'm instantly turned off. I enjoy rich worlds, but abhor info dumps. Give me some reason to care about the history first before you start rattling it off to me.


----------



## C Ryan Bymaster (Oct 4, 2013)

I like the start to be an enveloping tone of what this story will revolve around. If i had to put my foot down and choose action over backstory, I'd say action. Let the whos and whys bubble up to surface, rewards for me (the reader) to continue flipping the pages (or swiping the e-pages)


----------



## michaelwebermw (Sep 24, 2013)

Has anyone come across a story in which there was an appendix? 

Are there any fantasy stories out there in which you felt could be turned into a series or wished to get more from it?

Is one book ever really enough to tell a fantasy story?


----------

