So I have a few characters in a story I'm working on, they're an ensemble cast of sorts; there's a four-six main characters that will be portrayed, along with a plethora of recurring ones. Each of the main characters will have their own introduction story set in first person, with the rest of the story in third person. The introduction story varies in length from character to character (from a few paragraphs to almost an entire chapter), and typically works to set the basis for their running conflict throughout the story. At least one or two of the conflicts they will have.
Anyway, the thing is, I'm slightly unsure about how much is sensible to reveal regarding their conflicts. I mean, a few of the characters are meant to be shrouded in mystery, so there I'm good, but others, not as much. The issue is, how much of their past I should reveal and in which form I should do so. Revealing too little kind of takes away the point of actually having an introduction story, but revealing too much will detract from the conflict later on, and you run the risk of the reader's curiosity and interest waning as a result. So how much I should reveal, is what I'm wondering. Or if I should reveal anything at all. I'll post the basics about two-three of the characters, and (leaving aside whether or not their background story actually is interesting; it's still a work in progress) then I'd like to hear how much you guys think it sensible to actually reveal. Or if there's even a point to this kind of introduction - I kind of want to do it, so the reader will know at least a bit of what is going on; there is much potential in the conflict created when the other characters do not know the others' circumstances, but the readers do.
One of the guys is a man who lived a normal life several hundred years ago, but was one day transported to our time (without knowing what had happened). He's taken in by an elderly couple, lives there for some time, then sets out on a pokemon journey to try and develop a deeper understanding of this foreign world - and to find a way back to his own time. Should I reveal from the start that he's from the past? Or is the potential for a twist so great I should leave it for a later occasion? The image of him dramatically revealing that he's from the past - without the reader knowing - feels so cliche to me. A cliche can be good, sure, but I don't know. I want to do, and will likely do it, differently, unless there's a resounding "NO" to this idea. Besides, the twist about what actually happened to make him end up in our time is supposed to be the real twist here, not the fact that he is from the past; that's just the fodder to create the twist.
Another is a girl whose special powers (NOT mary sue-special) resulted in a dramatic incident during her childhood. This resulted in her mother and her leaving for some godforsaken island, where they lived in isolation. This is what laid the base for an equally isolated character. The nature of the incident is shrouded in mystery, but should it be shrouded in mystery that there was such an incident? That would make it more interesting in a way, and I'd, like to avoid the whole "*dramatic* `...that incident´" way of doing it you so often see. Having the introductions in first person presents the problem that what they think will have to seem natural (or be in the form of a journal etc.) for them, meaning that some things will unavoidably have to be revealed, or mentioned, though. But I'd like to avoid that whole melodramatic referring to "that incident".
The concept I'm wondering about remains the same for all of the characters though: Should I reveal that there is a conflict straight away, or should I keep hidden the existence of any conflict at all until a small ways into the story? By introducing the characters in first-person, through thoughts etc., I can introduce the conflicts to the reader, without the characters getting introduced to each other's conflicts right from the bat, leaving room still for suspense ("when will the others find out?"). And seeing as how the whole story is very much character-driven, I feel this is more natural.
I'm pretty much set on doing it this way, so it's not that, but this little doubt that I always have compels me to bring this out and discuss it.
(If parts of this made little sense, my apologies - I'm quite tired)
Anyway, the thing is, I'm slightly unsure about how much is sensible to reveal regarding their conflicts. I mean, a few of the characters are meant to be shrouded in mystery, so there I'm good, but others, not as much. The issue is, how much of their past I should reveal and in which form I should do so. Revealing too little kind of takes away the point of actually having an introduction story, but revealing too much will detract from the conflict later on, and you run the risk of the reader's curiosity and interest waning as a result. So how much I should reveal, is what I'm wondering. Or if I should reveal anything at all. I'll post the basics about two-three of the characters, and (leaving aside whether or not their background story actually is interesting; it's still a work in progress) then I'd like to hear how much you guys think it sensible to actually reveal. Or if there's even a point to this kind of introduction - I kind of want to do it, so the reader will know at least a bit of what is going on; there is much potential in the conflict created when the other characters do not know the others' circumstances, but the readers do.
One of the guys is a man who lived a normal life several hundred years ago, but was one day transported to our time (without knowing what had happened). He's taken in by an elderly couple, lives there for some time, then sets out on a pokemon journey to try and develop a deeper understanding of this foreign world - and to find a way back to his own time. Should I reveal from the start that he's from the past? Or is the potential for a twist so great I should leave it for a later occasion? The image of him dramatically revealing that he's from the past - without the reader knowing - feels so cliche to me. A cliche can be good, sure, but I don't know. I want to do, and will likely do it, differently, unless there's a resounding "NO" to this idea. Besides, the twist about what actually happened to make him end up in our time is supposed to be the real twist here, not the fact that he is from the past; that's just the fodder to create the twist.
Another is a girl whose special powers (NOT mary sue-special) resulted in a dramatic incident during her childhood. This resulted in her mother and her leaving for some godforsaken island, where they lived in isolation. This is what laid the base for an equally isolated character. The nature of the incident is shrouded in mystery, but should it be shrouded in mystery that there was such an incident? That would make it more interesting in a way, and I'd, like to avoid the whole "*dramatic* `...that incident´" way of doing it you so often see. Having the introductions in first person presents the problem that what they think will have to seem natural (or be in the form of a journal etc.) for them, meaning that some things will unavoidably have to be revealed, or mentioned, though. But I'd like to avoid that whole melodramatic referring to "that incident".
The concept I'm wondering about remains the same for all of the characters though: Should I reveal that there is a conflict straight away, or should I keep hidden the existence of any conflict at all until a small ways into the story? By introducing the characters in first-person, through thoughts etc., I can introduce the conflicts to the reader, without the characters getting introduced to each other's conflicts right from the bat, leaving room still for suspense ("when will the others find out?"). And seeing as how the whole story is very much character-driven, I feel this is more natural.
I'm pretty much set on doing it this way, so it's not that, but this little doubt that I always have compels me to bring this out and discuss it.
(If parts of this made little sense, my apologies - I'm quite tired)
