New one on me, and it seems a bit off imo.Not for 50 pages is one guideline.
You'll hear variations on what is essentially the same good advice not to provide backstory
EETA: And that isn't what that link says unless I missed it?
until the reader is sufficiently invested in your story/character, one way or another.
This on the other hand is more like it. And if it takes fifty pages....Done right, I'll be invested by page three. Or sooner. Done wrong, after fifty pages of not knowing why someone is acting as they are/who they are in essence, I may well fling the book (ETA I can see this working for something VERY plot heavy. But if you want me to invest in your character I need to know what makes them tick. And often that is the sum of past experiences that shaped them into who they are now, and why).
"Backstory" can be anything from a couple of words and up. Dribble it in, yes. But leaving it to that far in? That seems....arbitrary and unnecessary (and maybe harmful to the story). Do it when it is needed, and as little as is needed. As that link says :
Maybe I missed it but it says nothing about leaving it for fifty pages? Only leaving it until it is necessary?The secret to backstory is to introduce it in miniscule amounts and only as necessary. Let it loose when your reader needs to know about it and then drip it into your novel rather than pour it. Offering your reader pieces of information is much more effective than info dumps.
As for the OP -- someone said above and I think I agree that you are possibly starting your story in the wrong place. I know the advice is to start in media res, but it doesn't have to be that dramatic! What is your story here? Is it why she jumps? If so, then the jump should come later because the story happens before. If the story is "what happened after Jane jumped" then OK, start with the jump but then the backstory isn't as much part of this story and you should concentrate on, da dah! what happens after she jumps.
Last edited: