Flashbacks are hard, because you need a definitive way to show you're doing them. There's the chapter heading method, ie "2 Years Ago" or something. I don't think there's a specifically graceful way to do them, because it's an obvious story construction device, not a flow of narrative.

That's how I think this story wants to be told. Have you used the technique much, Barb? Are there any pitfalls of which I should be wary?

So far, I've only used the "flashback" per se, in one manuscript, the 1960s set women's fiction that's been trying to kill me for the past couple of years. While it's set primarily in 1965, I do have to show some scenes set in 1959 and 1960 and I think the thing I've tried to be careful with is to not overuse it-- but it has been an integral component in showing events that shaped the main character that couldn't have been shown any other way, other than a massive backstory dump of "telling."

Something I've been using throughout as chapter headers is headlines from the time period-- and when I flashback, I use one from the year I'm flashing back to, such as:

CUBA REBELS KILL HIGH CASTRO AIDE

Bombs Rock Havana

R. Hart Phillips

The New York Times

December 1, 1960

I then reinforce it with an italicized December 1960 just before I go into the meat of the chapter.

That's just one way. I'm sure there are others.

I used a lot of flashbacks in Pictures of Us, and in Cold Kiss, and usually I just start a new chapter with the flashback. If you lead into it right, it's easy to tell that the character is remembering something from the past -- in Cold Kiss it was even easier because it's present tense, and the flashbacks aren't.

I don't think you should ever overuse them, but some stories lend themselves to it, or require if the past figures in heavily. It all depends.

All I know is, I just turned in the revisions on Cold Kiss and it's not time to eat ALL THE ICE CREAM.

I know you're wicked busy with the move and the kids, but did you happen to send Pictures of Us yet, Amy? I checked Amazon again, yesterday. I am would love to buy it, but t's still unavailable.

I didn't, but it's on my list! There's a copy downstairs ready to go. I just had to get the revisions done first, and now comes ... everything else. Sigh. It's coming, though! Promise.

Crap. I hope I still have your address. I'll shout if I don't.

I have no relevant comments here, except that

Stephen King's On Writing

is a great book.

Amy, I'll send it to you on facebook (which I have open, as opposed to gmail, which I don't) right now.

Naomi, I agree. On Writing is great. And erika, by no means do you need to read it (any any sense). But, that said, he's not INSISTENT about things. He's just speaking from experience. The book is as much of a memoir as it as a how-to. He also acknowledges where he holds a strong opinion, and yet, can find successes that suggest his opinion is wrong (in fact, flashbacks may be one of those instances).

The book is as much of a memoir as it as a how-to.

That's what I love about King. He's never didactic, and if he is, he admits it (and admits he might be wrong). I just love his conversational style, in everything he writes, actually, but especially in On Writing.

Me too, Amy. His only Stompy-sections are those on spelling and grammar. He's also the one that's made me think that maybe MAYBE, when my opus is done, I can find a house/editor, rather than an agent. Not saying that's the way I'm going, but Little Brown is ten miles from me, you know?

eta...

Also, tonight, even though I'm not writing (at this moment) can I tell you how fricking high I am on my book story? It's going to be offensive and piss people off, but I lurve it.

I get a little stompy about spelling, grammar, and punctuation myself, so I sympathize with him there.

And being high on your BOOK is an excellent thing. That's how you get it written, babe.