Flashbacks are events that happened before your primary story began. You insert them in the scene in such a way as to flesh out the story, being careful not to slow the pace of the story, lose the reader’s interest, or create confusion.
I recently read a novel set in World War II Paris. The book chronicles the lives of two women during the Nazi occupation of Paris. It is told almost completely in flashbacks. I guess they’re flashbacks since there’s no real timeline.
The story begins in 1943, but the subsequent chapters bounce between 1939 and 1945 (when the Allies free Paris from Nazi rule). Not only does the story bounce around in time, it bounces between the two heroines.
Does this type of story telling slow the flow of the story? Does it lose reader’s interest? Does it create confusion.
Honestly, I’d have to say yes to all three.
Still, many readers enjoyed the story and it has received good reviews. Some readers didn’t stick with it and voiced their dislike of the structure.
Here’s the real question. Did writing the story with a bouncing timeline make the story better?
I don’t think so.
While each chapter heading set the date and location, there was always momentary confusion as I tried to orient myself to the year, the point of view character, and the setting. Once I accomplished that, I could usually fit the opening paragraphs into the context of the overall story.
I realize some authors like to turn story telling on its head and try new gimmicks. And yes, I think a novel filled with flashbacks is a gimmick. The story lacked the basic structure of a story: a beginning, a middle, and an end.
Story telling is an ancient art form refined through countless centuries and countless stories. It originated eons before there was pen and paper. Early storytellers did exactly that, they told stories to their family, friends, and visitors. A good storyteller learns how to keep the audience interested.
Through trial and error, storytellers unknowingly shaped stories around the way the human brain processes information. For example, one strong component of storytelling is its reliance on the participation of the audience, or in this case, the reader. Brain research has revealed that humans get quite caught up in stories. Most readers try and guess what comes next. And a good story uses twists and turns to keep the reader guessing. Listening to or reading well-written stories also enhance our critical thinking skills.
The Paris occupation story isn’t told in the accepted story format and it makes it difficult for the reader to participate in the story. We know this isn’t an alternate history story and we know the Nazis will be defeated at the end. As written, we don’t get a chance to anticipate how the heroines will react to the various events or guess what might happen next because the next chapter might well be set two years earlier than the one you just read.
You may wonder why I finished this book. I admit, I wasn’t sure I was going to read all of it. What kept me going was the author’s historical research. She did a fine job of putting the reader in occupied Paris. As a history buff I enjoyed that aspect of her novel. So, I guess I connected with her story via the setting. On the other hand, the lack of story structure makes me wary of reading any other book by her.
